[Technarch]

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.

Don't over-think it. Your finger is grabbed and pressed to the sensor, device unlocks. You can attempt to prove that it wasn't already unlocked if you like, but how can you?

[eddy_berry]

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?



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.



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.

You know upon rereading that article, to make sure I can continue to properly counter you, I find that a lot of what you are saying is exactly the type of rhetoric that is needed to ensure this new law is used in the best way possible without violating an innocent persons privacy rights. As long as there will be people passionate about such issues, such as you and I, there can be changes implemented to these laws that ensure that our rights to privacy are safe.

The law was passed 4-3. A close margin where there was clearly concern about violating an individual's privacy. This won't stop here. I think perhaps you are taking a very one sided approach to this law and it's implications on your privacy. It even states that an officer can't just take your phone and go through it unless you have been arrested and even then there are procedures they must adhere to and only certain information they are allowed to obtain. Anything otherwise would give you the right to litigate. A lot of what you are stating is already being discussed in the supreme court. You do have the right to legal counsel no matter what. You are proposing a scenario where the police are heavy handed and using their authority to violate your rights in which case you have laws protecting you and if you do not know them you should have a lawyer. If you're telling me we have no rights because of this new law then I don't believe you. We don't live in that kind of country and if you think this the beginning of the end of privacy in Canada you're dead wrong. We can't simply treat this law like we will be the one incarcerated. When we are the victim of crime we may have different views on the subject. This law is meant to give law enforcement a way to gather the right evidence to prove innocence. In saying that, should this new law be revised to ensure innocent people's privacy is protected? Absolutely and it will. There are many good individuals fighting for these rights right now. We can argue all we want online but the real battle is in court.

Posted via CB10

[Smitty13]

I think perhaps you are taking a very one sided approach to this law and it's implications on your privacy. It even states that an officer can't just take your phone and go through it unless you have been arrested and even then there are procedures they must adhere to and only certain information they are allowed to obtain.

In your response you have again brought up issues to which I brought up previously. An arrest does not equate to being guilty; as I am sure you are aware there have been numerous cases of wrong imprisonment and incarceration. My point is, why upon arrest must one forfeit their right to privacy on a communication device that may not have a single thing to do with the accused crime at hand?

You also similarly point to the policies and procedures that govern what an officer may or may not take from one's phone; I kindly ask of you to see my other posts within this thread where I have brought up questions such as:

- Who is to decide what data is relevant to the case at hand? Is this a decision based on a single officer? Multiple? Multiple superior officers on duty? A committee? No where is this explained clearly.

- What grounds are there to declare particular data as being recent enough to potentially contribute to a crime? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 month? How far will this go back?

The ambiguous nature of how this decision was written does not clearly spell out the answers to these questions nor does it provide a clear path to remedy these ambiguities. A law that carries potentially great consequences does not deserve to have any ambiguities which allow for future abuse.

You do have the right to legal counsel no matter what.

I again kindly ask you to revisit my last post where I stated:

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.

While you surely do have the right to legal counsel upon arrest, you have absolutely zero input to how any of these data collection procedures are applied. Your legal counsel also does not have this right. Essentially all your legal counsel could do in this situation is explain that law enforcement is inevitably going to look into your phone. Please explain to me the utility of legal counsel in this scenario.

You are proposing a scenario where the police are heavy handed and using their authority to violate your rights in which case you have laws protecting you and if you do not know them you should have a lawyer.

That is the entire point of this thread: laws are now being enacted which eat away at previously established laws and/or laws that had grey area in which privacy rights could be argued. As I mentioned previously (re: slippery slope), this law is only serving to establish precedents which lead to further laws that eat away at privacy rights.

We can't simply treat this law like we will be the one incarcerated.

Yes we can and yes we should. Innocent people never intend on being on the wrong side of the law, but it can and does happen on a basis much more than I think you realize. Establishing heavy handed laws under the pretence that innocent people could never be swept up in them is not only unethical but downright dangerous. Thus far the proposed "safeguards" do not nearly go far enough to counteract the potential pitfalls of this law.

Similarly, the public has not been presented any data (outside of the one case being frequented quoted) that shows the efficacy of these tactics in real world scenarios.

This law is meant to give law enforcement a way to gather the right evidence to prove innocence.

How are you sure of this? How are you sure this law's main intent is not to help prove guilt rather than alleviate it?

In saying that, should this new law be revised to ensure innocent people's privacy is protected? Absolutely and it will.

You are sure of this...how? Please point to the numerous cases where laws have been retooled to ensure greater privacy for citizens? Please point specifically to me statistical evidence that proves this is the next logical step in this law. You can't, because quite simply there is no data to back up this assertion. You are merely taking a blind guess and asserting it as fact.

[eddy_berry]

How are you sure of this? How are you sure this law's main intent is not to help prove guilt rather than alleviate it?

All law is intended to correctly administer justice. It isn't a perfect system, but if it is not designed to prove innocence then that is a problem. Why is it that you show such disdain for the law? Does it not work for you the way you want it? Then do something about it. You can talk all you want on a BlackBerry fan site but it does nothing. Maybe start a petition or something. I suggest starting at change.org so you don't necessarily have to get up to start something.

Please point to the numerous cases where laws have been retooled to ensure greater privacy for citizens? Please point specifically to me statistical evidence that proves this is the next logical step in this law. You can't, because quite simply there is no data to back up this assertion. You are merely taking a blind guess and asserting it as fact.

You are doing the same. I don't have the time nor care to argue this on CB in such detail. Do you? I don't work in law therefore can not pull specific examples of how laws can change out of my behind. I just know they have. Laws are not written in stone. You are also speculating the nature of this law. I'm not sure you realize that you are not the only person who is arguing this new law. The only difference is those people are actually in a position to make changes. Like I said, it's not like the law passed unanimously. There is clear opposition and in that case I would expect clarification and transparency on what our rights are. If that cannot be provided then we truly have a major issue on our hands and believe me it won't just be allowed without a big fight.

I'm done arguing this bud. This is not a straightforward removal of our privacy rights. This is intended for collecting evidence that pertains to a crime. It is a new law and not perfect. It will be fought tooth and nail. But the MO of this law is to properly administer justice in the event of a crime.

Posted via CB10

[Smitty13]

All law is intended to correctly administer justice. It isn't a perfect system, but if it is not designed to prove innocence then that is a problem. Why is it that you show such disdain for the law? Does it not work for you the way you want it? Then do something about it. You can talk all you want on a BlackBerry fan site but it does nothing. Maybe start a petition or something. I suggest starting at change.org so you don't necessarily have to get up to start something.

Where did I say I have a disdain for the law? You could argue, and I would agree, I definitely have a disdain for draconian laws with an unproven utility; but where did I say that I have a disdain for a law as a whole? You are really grasping at straws at this point, which gives me the distinct feeling you know you do not have an appropriate rebuttal for anything I previously stated.

You know absolutely nothing of my background nor commitment to citizen's rights, yet you accuse me of not being proactive. How can anyone take you seriously when you make unfounded criticisms? Similarly, do you not find it ironic that in one instance you criticize my use of an Internet forum to make my points, but then suggest I use another Internet medium to get my point across? This does not add up unless you are going to split hairs here and say one is a petition while the other is not. My argument is that I am bringing this issue to the public's conscience.

Not that I have to prove myself to someone who clearly does not use factual evidence to back up their assertions, but I have already scheduled a meeting with my riding's MP to discuss my concerns about this new law. What have you done so far?

You are doing the same. I don't have the time nor care to argue this on CB in such detail.

Clearly you do given the number of responses you have provided to me already, but now that I have posed questions you cannot simply answer with unfounded rhetoric you are packing it in.

Do you?

Yes. Hence why I am taking you to task on your claims which you cannot back up with any evidence.

I don't work in law therefore can not pull specific examples of how laws can change out of my behind. I just know they have.

"I just know they have." Tell me, does that argument work anywhere in any serious discussion? Or is this again just your way of packing it in and walking away?

Laws are not written in stone.

Of course they aren't, but in saying that you are showing your ignorance to the judicial process to remove a law once it is on the books. Look up it up in any Canadian Law book and you will see numerous references to the long and lengthy process of removing a law versus putting one on the books.

Like I said, it's not like the law passed unanimously. There is clear opposition and in that case I would expect clarification and transparency on what our rights are. If that cannot be provided then we truly have a major issue on our hands and believe me it won't just be allowed without a big fight.

The opposition from the Supreme Court of Canada is completely inconsequential at this juncture as it has now been passed and will be written into the law. Look at the House of Commons; the Progressive Conservative party has a clear majority within the House and can essentially pass legislation as it pleases. Both Liberal and NDP MPs usually vehemently oppose these motions, yet, what good does that opposition do? Absolutely nothing. Opposition that failed to win the majority of minds during the initial discussion and passage of this law mean absolutely nothing after the fact.

I'm done arguing this bud. This is not a straightforward removal of our privacy rights. This is intended for collecting evidence that pertains to a crime. It is a new law and not perfect. It will be fought tooth and nail. But the MO of this law is to properly administer justice in the event of a crime.

Ah yes, the final air of false nobility where you will seemingly walk away from this debate, having not put forth any evidence to your assertions, claiming that this is too complex to discuss. I know you will be reading this reply.

It absolutely frightens me there is a significant portion of the population, such as yourself, that fails to see the pitfalls of this legislation and what it may eventually lead to. Heck, I cannot know for sure, but bet you are also in favour of the newly revamped Cyber Bully law; for all intents and purposes is a law dressed up with a "please help the children" name but really extends the powers of CSEC/CSIS and other law enforcement to absurd levels.

We are in a time of great flux and if we do not speak up now to preserve our right to privacy, I see it slowly being eroded further and further in my lifetime.

[Carrtman]

The right for privacy can't be sold not forced upon us only if danger is immediate. Each lawyer would have field day with this if the police is going that far.

Just the stupid government trying to make the nsa job even easier.

[cbvinh]

Don't over-think it. Your finger is grabbed and pressed to the sensor, device unlocks. You can attempt to prove that it wasn't already unlocked if you like, but how can you?

I thought you were talking about using TouchID as a new method of collecting fingerprints instead of the old ink and paper...

[Mirk]

Someone has it figured out...
Riley v. California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee's escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon--say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one."

"Cell phone data would be vulnerable to remote wiping from the time an individual anticipates arrest to the time any eventual search of the phone is completed ... likewise, an officer who seizes a phone in an unlocked state might not be able to begin his search in the short time remaining before the phone locks and data becomes encrypted."

"Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life". The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought."

"we should not mechanically apply the rule used in the predigital era to the search of a cell phone. Many cell phones now in use are capable of storing and accessing a quantity of information, some highly personal, that no person would ever have had on his person in hard-copy form."

Simply put, the Supreme Court of Canada failed for the clear reasons above.

[eddy_berry]

Smitty I don't see much evidence and solid proof from you either. I'm glad you're going to talk to your MP. Also. I can write on CB pretty quickly. All my answers were done on breaks. I just don't have time to go research all that you ask. It would take a bit of time to put together a good argument. That was my point in regards to that. For a person who doesn't like it when a stranger on the Internet judges them you sure have done a lot of the same. I can see you don't like it either. I'm sorry if you took offense to my remark on getting off the couch. It wasn't nice and it was meant as a starting point to direct that passion of yours away from me and in a more meaningful direction. If you're going to your MP then having a petition would help make a statement right? My point in this whole debate was to have a debate. I'm not angry or anything. You seem very passionate about this subject. I admit I'm not great at debating, but you haven't convinced me of your argument even though I agreed that this law has flaws that should not have allowed it to pass. I just don't believe that this law is out to get us. You're telling me that things won't change. I'm telling you things can change. Now you tell me that you're going to talk to your MP. What's the point if you believe things won't change anyway? They can and you are doing something about it. I'm glad you are. I'm done with this debate because you keep telling me the same thing and I just don't believe that this law is just out to strip away our privacy. It seems a bit tinfoil to me and I'm not one to disregard such notions as crazy talk. I just don't see it that way, but I'm not just letting this law go as is either. Good luck with your MP. Feel free to PM me if you have more information from them.

Posted via CB10

[Smitty13]

First of all, I thought you were done with this debate? Why the sudden change of heart?

For a person who doesn't like it when a stranger on the Internet judges them you sure have done a lot of the same.

Outside of my presumption that you would support similar laws (E.g. Cyber Bullying law), where have I judged you? I have only judged your words and opinions, not your character as you rudely did to me. In any debate, the second you make a person attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you lose all credibility. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you make questions that come across the way yours did? That is an honest question you can answer without time to 'research' anything.

I just don't have time to go research all that you ask. It would take a bit of time to put together a good argument.

Be that as it may, why would you enter into a debate if you did not have the time to back up the claims you have made?

I admit I'm not great at debating, but you haven't convinced me of your argument even though I agreed that this law has flaws that should not have allowed it to pass.

Here is an example I have already referenced if you need proof that there is a nastily growing precedent to introduced repackaged laws that failed once at being put on the books.

Bill C-30 was introduced by the PC government under the banner "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act" which was shot down in February of 2013 after having it's flaws exposed and widely publicized. (Source: Bill C-30: Tories kill controversial Internet surveillance bill | National Post).

Bill C-13 is the reincarnated version of Bill C-30, and ironically, provides even more power to authorities to invade the digital privacy of citizens. This bill is being met with the same criticisms from the same politicians and legal minds as last time, yet, here we are again debating the exact same thing as last time. (Source: Cyberbullying bill draws fire from diverse mix of critics - Politics - CBC News).

Given Harper's track record at the Supreme Court (0 for 9; Source: The federal government's court-case losing streak - Politics - CBC News), I am astounded this current government continuously tries to pass legislation that clearly the public does not want and what the Supreme Court clearly thinks are overreaches of authority.

Again...tell me they won't try to pass more. I mean...it's not like I've shown you anything to prove they have tried in the past with similar laws. /sarcasm

It seems a bit tinfoil to me and I'm not one to disregard such notions as crazy talk.

Do you recall the public shaming of people who made claims that federal governments around the world were tracking our every digital move? How they were told to put the tinfoil hat back on? How did that work out for everyone again? It's not like we have had some massive treasure trove of internal intelligence agency documents dumped at our feet which confirm that. /sarcasm

But in all honesty, here is a question you needn't research: Do you honestly believe the government is acting in complete and utter good faith in passing this law?

If you have even a shred of doubt, you have only confirmed why this is such a big deal. The fact you claim this to be a law that should not have passed as it is, yet turn around and defend it making the claim it is to preserve innocence of the people is rather paradoxical. Which is it?

[eddy_berry]

Chill. I apologized for that remark. It came across more offensive than what was meant. I'm not giving in or giving up. I just don't want to fight you on this. You are set in the belief that this law is just another swipe at our eroding personal privacy and I just simply don't see it that way. You gave me examples of Harper's Bills (which you assumed I had no issues with) that never passed once it was found to contain extreme privacy violations. I definitely had issues with that. It was shot down by the same supreme court that passed this law. Yes I do agree with the other 3 judges that it does leave this law open to officer misconduct, but with some changes I think it can be more beneficial to justice. They decided on this law because of a case where information was not obtained legally from a person's cell phone. It didn't stop the courts from using that against him. So if an officer obtains a warrant to search your cell phone which forces you to unlock it and then go through whatever they want and not need to document what they went through and why, is that better? Because that's how it happens now.

I'd like to know your thoughts on what could be better. Would it be better that there were laws that limit what an officer is allowed to search? Would it be better if the law just barred officers from mobile devices completely whether it pertained to a thorough investigation or not? I just think we can't just say no to such laws. There will be a need for them as mobile devices become increasingly involved with our daily lives.

In my opinion, this law is trying to find a way to lawfully extract pertinent information from mobile devices without completely invading personal privacy. In other words, to not bare all to the court but rather only specific information. The obvious downside is that it gave officers some control back by removing the need for a warrant where an arrest has already been made. But a warrant is not that difficult to obtain anyway. It just adds a hurdle to an investigation. The law can be difficult to interpret and those Bills that Harper tried to put through were anything but simple and needed to be picked through with a fine comb. This law isn't simple either but I think it is more transparent than those Bills. I'm not trying to fight. I would just like a more balanced discussion.

Posted via CB10

[Smitty13]

Chill. I apologized for that remark. It came across more offensive than what was meant. I'm not giving in or giving up. I just don't want to fight you on this. You are set in the belief that this law is just another swipe at our eroding personal privacy and I just simply don't see it that way. You gave me examples of Harper's Bills (which you assumed I had no issues with) that never passed once it was found to contain extreme privacy violations. I definitely had issues with that. It was shot down by the same supreme court that passed this law. Yes I do agree with the other 3 judges that it does leave this law open to officer misconduct, but with some changes I think it can be more beneficial to justice. They decided on this law because of a case where information was not obtained legally from a person's cell phone. It didn't stop the courts from using that against him. So if an officer obtains a warrant to search your cell phone which forces you to unlock it and then go through whatever they want and not need to document what they went through and why, is that better? Because that's how it happens now.

I'd like to know your thoughts on what could be better. Would it be better that there were laws that limit what an officer is allowed to search? Would it be better if the law just barred officers from mobile devices completely whether it pertained to a thorough investigation or not? I just think we can't just say no to such laws. There will be a need for them as mobile devices become increasingly involved with our daily lives.

In my opinion, this law is trying to find a way to lawfully extract pertinent information from mobile devices without completely invading personal privacy. In other words, to not bare all to the court but rather only specific information. The obvious downside is that it gave officers some control back by removing the need for a warrant where an arrest has already been made. But a warrant is not that difficult to obtain anyway. It just adds a hurdle to an investigation. The law can be difficult to interpret and those Bills that Harper tried to put through were anything but simple and needed to be picked through with a fine comb. This law isn't simple either but I think it is more transparent than those Bills. I'm not trying to fight. I would just like a more balanced discussion.

Posted via CB10

Chill. I apologized for that remark. It came across more offensive than what was meant. I'm not giving in or giving up. I just don't want to fight you on this.

I'm sorry you take this to be a fight, as it really is not. This is merely a debate, and yes, debates do get heated. I am not trying to 'fight' you or attack your person, I am merely debating your opinions and points of view.

You gave me examples of Harper's Bills (which you assumed I had no issues with)

Where did I make the claim you did not have issues with these bills? I provided you evidence contrary to your claim that the government would surely retool this bill if there was an outcry that it went too far (re: privacy concerns). I never once said you supported those bills, but rather, showed you that on a very consistent basis (more so than any recent federal government) that this government is willing to push laws which further erode privacy despite public and professional opinions that they go too far.

Yes I do agree with the other 3 judges that it does leave this law open to officer misconduct, but with some changes I think it can be more beneficial to justice.

That is a very admirable thought to have, but the issue with that stance is, this law is now in effect. There is no time to retool, no time for debate, no time to make critical changes. That in itself is one major issue with this law. Do you recall a House of Commons debate on this? Even if it were just an elaborate dog and pony show to say they debated it's merits? I sure don't.

They decided on this law because of a case where information was not obtained legally from a person's cell phone. It didn't stop the courts from using that against him.

That is an awfully flimsy reason to enact such an overreaching law, no? One simple case that did not involve national security in the slightest was the prime reason as to why this law was enacted. I could of course make ridiculous comparisons here, but I think you know where I would go with those. Should one (relatively) small criminal case carry such a weight to enact a national law with grave privacy implications?

So if an officer obtains a warrant to search your cell phone which forces you to unlock it and then go through whatever they want and not need to document what they went through and why, is that better? Because that's how it happens now.

Yes, it is. You are also incorrect in making the assumption they do not need to document what it is they found/went through as this is at the core of the Crown's arguments in court. Similar to how any other physical evidence is handled, there must be a chain of command to show that the evidence has not been tampered with or inappropriately used/analyzed. Under the current system an IT professional in law enforcement would be tasked with this, under the new system, essentially any police officer can now do this. Do you feel better with an untrained law enforcement official having carte blanche access to your phone without a warrant?

The obvious downside is that it gave officers some control back by removing the need for a warrant where an arrest has already been made. But a warrant is not that difficult to obtain anyway. It just adds a hurdle to an investigation.

Similarly, when did a warrant become this increasingly hard legal remedy? It may surprise you, but in an instance where time is of the essence and police need to act fast, a verbal warrant can be obtained from a judge over the phone. Yes, you heard that correctly. In a matter of minutes an officer can have a search warrant obtained from a judge over the phone if they fear data may be remotely wiped and/or destroyed which may help solve a major incident. So tell me, why is a warrant such a major hurdle to climb over?

Would it be better that there were laws that limit what an officer is allowed to search?

Yes. I will not for one second entertain the notion that you are that naive to what a smartphone can carry these days given you being on these forums. Can you point out where in this new law there are specific safe guards for things such as cloud passwords, mobile banking, etc.? I surely do not see them. Only ambiguous language that says it is up to an officer's discretion on what is "relevant". Do not avoid this question as you have with all of my others, please point this out to me.

Would it be better if the law just barred officers from mobile devices completely whether it pertained to a thorough investigation or not?

No where did I say I would wish for this, as I do believe information relevant to an investigation can be contained on a phone. I have time and time again said my primary issue with this is the ambiguous language that surrounds this law in regards to numerous facets. Who determines what is relevant? One person? Two? A panel? No where is this explicitly explained.

How far back can a law enforcement official go to look? One minute? One hour? One month? No where is this explicitly explained.

Do you trust that all law enforcement officials will act in good faith and never intrude further? If you believe there is a possibility of them going further, even once, then this law has failed the people already.

I'm not trying to fight. I would just like a more balanced discussion.

I am not trying to fight either, this is merely a debate. I am failing to see how this is an unbalanced discussion...wait, I take that back. I have provided you with evidence of my claims (E.g. laws continuously being pushed that clearly erode privacy rights) and you have not provided one source or shred of evidence to back up your claims or assertions. Please provide me some links to factual evidence which gives credence to your claims. I am not fighting you, I am merely arguing that the mentality you share with a great deal of other people in this country in regards to privacy rights is preposterous.

For the ease of your next reply, I have bolded each of my questions/requests. Thanks!

[ArcPlug]

I asked a friend who's an RCMP in the tech crimes unit for a little clarification on this. The only thing they can do without a warrant is take a brief look at your unlocked phone for something in context to the arrest. They can't image it to look through it later or anything like that. They still need a warrant for that. And if they have you under arrest for say, theft, and they find child porn on your phone, they have to stop what they're doing and get a warrant to search your phone as that evidence would be inadmissible in court otherwise. They can't make you unlock it, if it's an iPhone they can't grab your finger and force you to unlock it. So as far as I understand it, not much has changed, they simply have the legal right to look at your phone while you are under arrest. There will of course be some who take advantage of their position of power, same as before. No different from your wife or daughter going to the gym, and the male doctor is a pervert who inappropriately touches his patients. Or your pediatrician is a pedophile. There are bad apples all over the place, that is not going to change any time soon.

[eddy_berry]

I asked a friend who's an RCMP in the tech crimes unit...

That is interesting insight to this discussion.

Posted via CB10

[Smitty13]

That is interesting insight to this discussion.

Posted via CB10

Ah, eddy_berry! So good to see you. Have you had a chance to look at my above questions yet?

[Smitty13]

I asked a friend who's an RCMP in the tech crimes unit for a little clarification on this. The only thing they can do without a warrant is take a brief look at your unlocked phone for something in context to the arrest. They can't image it to look through it later or anything like that. They still need a warrant for that. And if they have you under arrest for say, theft, and they find child porn on your phone, they have to stop what they're doing and get a warrant to search your phone as that evidence would be inadmissible in court otherwise. They can't make you unlock it, if it's an iPhone they can't grab your finger and force you to unlock it. So as far as I understand it, not much has changed, they simply have the legal right to look at your phone while you are under arrest. There will of course be some who take advantage of their position of power, same as before. No different from your wife or daughter going to the gym, and the male doctor is a pervert who inappropriately touches his patients. Or your pediatrician is a pedophile. There are bad apples all over the place, that is not going to change any time soon.

Hey thanks for the insight, ArcPlug.

Just out of curiosity did your friend happen to tell you if there were any perimeters in terms of what "brief" is? Specifically if that meant a matter of minutes or seconds? I hadn't seen much in way of this new law which outlines that.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you be able to ask your friend what this law would mean in regards to what is deemed "relevant" data to look at while they look at your phone? Again, I have not seen anything in this new law which outlines that.

I have a family member in the provincial police force in my province whom I am going to ask about this as well. They are not in IT or any sort of special technology unit, but would be someone that could confiscate a phone on front line duty. I'll report back once I have some more answers.

[eddy_berry]

I'm sorry you take this to be a fight, as it really is not. This is merely a debate, and yes, debates do get heated. I am not trying to 'fight' you or attack your person, I am merely debating your opinions and points of view.

Fair enough. Let's continue.

Where did I make the claim you did not have issues with these bills? I provided you evidence contrary to your claim that the government would surely retool this bill if there was an outcry that it went too far (re: privacy concerns). I never once said you supported those bills, but rather, showed you that on a very consistent basis (more so than any recent federal government) that this government is willing to push laws which further erode privacy despite public and professional opinions that they go too far.

You did admit you assumed I backed Bill C-30. I don't know why, but I guess you figured my stance on this law mirrored that of any law that is considered a threat to privacy rights. No. It was quite clear to me and most everyone that that Bill was not good for privacy rights. Also, perhaps I have given good faith to the Supreme Court to not simply be pawns of the Harper government whereas you seem to be throwing them all in together. I can see why, considering most have been appointed while Harper was in power, but they are appointed by the Governor General. Not Harper, but they can be recommended by Harper to the GG. They have thrown out everything else Harper has proposed anyway.

That is a very admirable thought to have, but the issue with that stance is, this law is now in effect. There is no time to retool, no time for debate, no time to make critical changes. That in itself is one major issue with this law. Do you recall a House of Commons debate on this? Even if it were just an elaborate dog and pony show to say they debated it's merits? I sure don't.

The law just went into affect and yes this law, as with any law, can be amended. I understand it won't be a quick process, but there is plenty of opposition to the parts of this law that were not clearly defined. That's a good thing. Once again the law passed 4-3. That's enough opposition to enact changes that, yes, I'm hoping is eventually changed.

That is an awfully flimsy reason to enact such an overreaching law, no? One simple case that did not involve national security in the slightest was the prime reason as to why this law was enacted. I could of course make ridiculous comparisons here, but I think you know where I would go with those. Should one (relatively) small criminal case carry such a weight to enact a national law with grave privacy implications?

It's not flimsy. The accused believed his Charter rights were violated therefore the Supreme Court became involved. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc...14502/index.do

Yes, it is. You are also incorrect in making the assumption they do not need to document what it is they found/went through as this is at the core of the Crown's arguments in court. Similar to how any other physical evidence is handled, there must be a chain of command to show that the evidence has not been tampered with or inappropriately used/analyzed. Under the current system an IT professional in law enforcement would be tasked with this, under the new system, essentially any police officer can now do this. Do you feel better with an untrained law enforcement official having carte blanche access to your phone without a warrant?

I'm not assuming they don't document searches. This is meant as a more detailed search in regards to mobile devices. The whole reason this law was written was because the officers did not properly document what they went through and why because they didn't have to. Those officers searched the cell without a warrant anyway and easily obtained the warrant once they knew they had evidence that can be used in court.

Similarly, when did a warrant become this increasingly hard legal remedy? It may surprise you, but in an instance where time is of the essence and police need to act fast, a verbal warrant can be obtained from a judge over the phone. Yes, you heard that correctly. In a matter of minutes an officer can have a search warrant obtained from a judge over the phone if they fear data may be remotely wiped and/or destroyed which may help solve a major incident. So tell me, why is a warrant such a major hurdle to climb over?

Lol. That doesn't surprise me. Haha. I think you missed the fact we are agreeing in that point. I didn't say what size that particular hurdle was and, if your a hurdler, one hurdle is just small part of the process anyway. Yes I know that warrants are easy to obtain.

Yes. I will not for one second entertain the notion that you are that naive to what a smartphone can carry these days given you being on these forums. Can you point out where in this new law there are specific safe guards for things such as cloud passwords, mobile banking, etc.? I surely do not see them. Only ambiguous language that says it is up to an officer's discretion on what is "relevant". Do not avoid this question as you have with all of my others, please point this out to me.

Relevant part:

Third, the nature and the extent of the search must be tailored to its purpose. *In practice, this will mean that only recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and the call log will, generally, be available, although other searches may, in some circumstances, be justified. *Finally, the police must take detailed notes of what they have examined on the device and how they examined it. *The notes should generally include the applications searched, the extent of the search, the time of the search, its purpose and its duration. *The record‑keeping requirement is important to the effectiveness of after‑the‑fact judicial review. *It will also help police officers to focus on whether what they are doing in relation to the phone falls squarely within the parameters of a lawful search incident to arrest.

I take that (in bold) as if the crime happened to be financial then yes bank accounts, but they would already have that information in that case. Cloud passwords and most things of that nature are not limited to your cell phone either and would only be accessed if it were case specific. What is stopping them from accessing everything and displaying it for the entire court to see would be the extent of your crime. When you are arrested a lot of your life will be exposed without ever needing to go through your phone.

No where did I say I would wish for this, as I do believe information relevant to an investigation can be contained on a phone. I have time and time again said my primary issue with this is the ambiguous language that surrounds this law in regards to numerous facets. Who determines what is relevant? One person? Two? A panel? No where is this explicitly explained.

How far back can a law enforcement official go to look? One minute? One hour? One month? No where is this explicitly explained.

Do you trust that all law enforcement officials will act in good faith and never intrude further? If you believe there is a possibility of them going further, even once, then this law has failed the people already.

I don't know what you mean by that first part. I asked open questions to gauge what you would like changed I didn't say you wanted or wished for anything. You answered fine after that though. Anyway. We must trust that law enforcement officers, in general, will act appropriately. But we can not assume that all officers will. Therefore it would be best to have strict guidelines in effect that pertain to searches where a person's privacy is in question. If this law didn't exist it wouldn't simply be better. Officers must explain what they are searching in greater detail now and are limited to what they are searching. Yes it could use some more explanation. As for time frame, with current laws there is also no time frame regarding searches. It should be pertinent to when the crime is believed to have happened. Anything before or after would be irrelevant. Will a cop go above the law? I hope not, but what you are suggesting is that they would force passwords out of you, which is against your rights in the first place, that officer would not be conducting themselves properly whether this law existed or not. If any officer hopes to make a case they would take care as to not break the law to obtain information.

Please provide me some links to factual evidence which gives credence to your claims.

Eh. I'm going to admit I'm not willing or able to put much time into this. This took me a while to add to throughout the day. Even for a Sunday I'm too busy. Haha. Everything I'm saying I see in the official SCC document I listed. What is there is the extent of the law we are discussing. Feel free to skip my interpretation and pick through what is written there. Thanks.


Posted via CB10

[eddy_berry]

Hey thanks for the insight, ArcPlug.

Just out of curiosity did your friend happen to tell you if there were any perimeters in terms of what "brief" is? Specifically if that meant a matter of minutes or seconds? I hadn't seen much in way of this new law which outlines that.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you be able to ask your friend what this law would mean in regards to what is deemed "relevant" data to look at while they look at your phone? Again, I have not seen anything in this new law which outlines that.

I have a family member in the provincial police force in my province whom I am going to ask about this as well. They are not in IT or any sort of special technology unit, but would be someone that could confiscate a phone on front line duty. I'll report back once I have some more answers.

It would be interesting to see how different officers interpret this law. It directly affects their jobs.

Posted via CB10

[ArcPlug]

Hey thanks for the insight, ArcPlug.

Just out of curiosity did your friend happen to tell you if there were any perimeters in terms of what "brief" is? Specifically if that meant a matter of minutes or seconds? I hadn't seen much in way of this new law which outlines that.

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you be able to ask your friend what this law would mean in regards to what is deemed "relevant" data to look at while they look at your phone? Again, I have not seen anything in this new law which outlines that.

I have a family member in the provincial police force in my province whom I am going to ask about this as well. They are not in IT or any sort of special technology unit, but would be someone that could confiscate a phone on front line duty. I'll report back once I have some more answers.

I didn't ask him for great detail as we were at a Christmas party together and not sitting down for coffee, but from what I understood the idea is the same thing as taking a flashlight and taking a quick look around your car. If they want to tear it apart, they need a warrant. If they find anything, they need to get a warrant. If you're worried about it, just keep your phone locked.

[Smitty13]

The law just went into affect and yes this law, as with any law, can be amended. I understand it won't be a quick process, but there is plenty of opposition to the parts of this law that were not clearly defined. That's a good thing. Once again the law passed 4-3. That's enough opposition to enact changes that, yes, I'm hoping is eventually changed.

You have failed to answer the question I bolded specifically: Do you recall a House of Commons debate on this?

You do not, because there was never one.

Furthermore, if you understand the implications of passing a law and having an extremely difficult process of amending even minor parts of it, why do you even support this law, in whole or part, in the first place if you understand there are issues with it? I can quote your previous support you voiced earlier if you claim you did not support it at any time.

The 3 dissenting SCOC judges are entirely inconsequential to this. Laws are not amended based on a narrow decision at the Supreme Court level. There have been numerous laws passed by the SCOC that have had 1 vote margins of victory that still stand today.

It's not flimsy. The accused believed his Charter rights were violated therefore the Supreme Court became involved. R. v. Fearon - SCC Cases (Lexum)

Perhaps you misunderstood by what I meant by flimsy, which I should have opted to use a different describing word, or left it at "relatively". While it is not entirely uncommon to have one case spur change in law, do you believe one instance where one person believed his Charter rights were being infringed upon should be enough to enact law with grave privacy implications?

The whole reason this law was written was because the officers did not properly document what they went through and why because they didn't have to. Those officers searched the cell without a warrant anyway and easily obtained the warrant once they knew they had evidence that can be used in court.

You are entirely wrong on this. Up until this law, it was not permissible to search a cellphone without a warrant. As I mentioned previously, any and all handling of the phone as well as accessed information must have been documented so as to prove the integrity of that evidence in court. If there is even one slip up with handling of evidence, an entire case can be thrown out. Chain of command is paramount here.

In the case which has been referenced as the reasoning for this law, I am completely astounded that evidence obtained illegally was permissible in court. Take from what what you will, but I am willing to bet that if this were to happen again (void of this current law) another lawyer may have successful argued that evidence should not be permissible, and won.

Lol. That doesn't surprise me. Haha. I think you missed the fact we are agreeing in that point. I didn't say what size that particular hurdle was and, if your a hurdler, one hurdle is just small part of the process anyway. Yes I know that warrants are easy to obtain.

But we are not agreeing. You cannot state: "It just adds a hurdle to an investigation" then claim you were on the side of a warrant not being a hurdle. Which is it?

I take that (in bold) as if the crime happened to be financial then yes bank accounts, but they would already have that information in that case. Cloud passwords and most things of that nature are not limited to your cell phone either and would only be accessed if it were case specific. What is stopping them from accessing everything and displaying it for the entire court to see would be the extent of your crime. When you are arrested a lot of your life will be exposed without ever needing to go through your phone.

That is YOUR interpretation, not the interpretation law enforcement officials, lawyers, judges and the like may take. Unknowingly, you have proven my point here. To whom is this interpretation up to? What decides what is the right interpretation of the bolded part you posted? No where is this correctly identified.

Similarly, while one's life may be out in the open during a trial, there are numerous aspects of one's life that would never make it to the light of day if their cellphone were not investigated. Cloud passwords and the like are not limited to one's cellphone, yet, if I had used the cloud on my laptop, law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search any part of my computer, while my cellphone is open, even if only momentarily for a 'quick search'? Please explain to me how that makes any sense, both legally and logically.

We must trust that law enforcement officers, in general, will act appropriately. But we can not assume that all officers will. Therefore it would be best to have strict guidelines in effect that pertain to searches where a person's privacy is in question. If this law didn't exist it wouldn't simply be better.

If even you admit to this, then why is so much discretion being given to a lay officer? If there is even a chance for an abuse that can be remedied very simply by taking that discretion away from them and putting it in the hands of IT professionals, then why isn't that being done? Why would you support this law given the flaws to it you have already acknowledged? You keep skating around that question and never seem to answer it. It is almost as though you are taking the stance of "something bad is better than nothing". Is this it? Please do elaborate on this point.

Eh. I'm going to admit I'm not willing or able to put much time into this. This took me a while to add to throughout the day. Even for a Sunday I'm too busy. Haha. Everything I'm saying I see in the official SCC document I listed. What is there is the extent of the law we are discussing. Feel free to skip my interpretation and pick through what is written there. Thanks.

And with that paragraph right there, you should really throw in the towel. If you come to a debate and literally do not have a shred of evidence, proof, or documented real life cases of what you state, you are merely throwing out conjecture and opinion versus verifiable and falsifiable fact.

I have looked at the link you provided, and no, my questions in regards to your statements still stand as they are not explicitly explained in that document or anywhere else.

[Rootbrian]

I'm not worried. I don't call/text people who are involved in criminal activity and nothing incriminating is on my BlackBerry's flash memory or SD card.

Posted with my BlackBerry Q10 using the CrackBerry 10 application

[Smitty13]

Eh. I'm going to admit I'm not willing or able to put much time into this. This took me a while to add to throughout the day. Even for a Sunday I'm too busy. Haha. Everything I'm saying I see in the official SCC document I listed. What is there is the extent of the law we are discussing. Feel free to skip my interpretation and pick through what is written there. Thanks.

And with that paragraph right there, you should really throw in the towel. If you come to a debate and literally do not have a shred of evidence, proof, or documented real life cases of what you state, you are merely throwing out conjecture and opinion versus verifiable and falsifiable fact.

I have looked at the link you provided, and no, my questions in regards to your statements still stand as they are not explicitly explained in that document or anywhere else.

First of all, eddy_berry, I am glad to see you heeded my advice. I will gladly take the W in this debate we were having. Thanks for coming out. Moving on...

I'm not worried. I don't call/text people who are involved in criminal activity and nothing incriminating is on my BlackBerry's flash memory or SD card.

Posted with my BlackBerry Q10 using the CrackBerry 10 application

Rootbrian, regardless of whether or not you have anything incriminating on your phone, do you not find it odd in both a legal and technological sense that this law allows even for a momentary look into one's phone without a warrant, whereas something like your laptop they would require a warrant to turn on and look through? There is an obvious disconnect here.

Similarly, what would occur if an officer took something completely out of context you texted a co-worker for instance? "Oh man, what a horrible day at the office! I could just kill those lazy people!". Suddenly that overzealous officer has a reason to question you further.

Why should it not be your choice who gets to look at your communications? Do police officers have a right to come and bother you during a face to face conversation with a friend or family member? Of course not. So why should they have the right to look into your phone's contents without a warrant?

[Rootbrian]

First of all, eddy_berry, I am glad to see you heeded my advice. I will gladly take the W in this debate we were having. Thanks for coming out. Moving on...



Rootbrian, regardless of whether or not you have anything incriminating on your phone, do you not find it odd in both a legal and technological sense that this law allows even for a momentary look into one's phone without a warrant, whereas something like your laptop they would require a warrant to turn on and look through? There is an obvious disconnect here.

Similarly, what would occur if an officer took something completely out of context you texted a co-worker for instance? "Oh man, what a horrible day at the office! I could just kill those lazy people!". Suddenly that overzealous officer has a reason to question you further.

Why should it not be your choice who gets to look at your communications? Do police officers have a right to come and bother you during a face to face conversation with a friend or family member? Of course not. So why should they have the right to look into your phone's contents without a warrant?

I would demand a warrant. Plus I never use the words kill at all, only towards electronics and not people. So if they thought I was going to "kill" an office photocopier, tough ****. lol.

[Smitty13]

I would demand a warrant. Plus I never use the words kill at all, only towards electronics and not people. So if they thought I was going to "kill" an office photocopier, tough ****. lol.

Two things here:

1.) You have no right to demand a warrant. That is entirely what this new law is about. If a law enforcement officer places you under arrest for something that may be later dropped in court (E.g. disturbing the peace, being a common nuisance, etc.) they can look at your phone at will without a warrant. Of course, the ambiguous language of this new law says that what they look at must be related/relevant to the crime, but as I have questioned people on here, who decides what is related/relevant? No one, not even the law, has explained this to me.

2.) Sure, you may not use the word "kill" or anything like it, but what if someone at the office happens to go missing and someone maliciously points the finger at you for having knowledge of what happened to that person? Yup, tough **** for you, they are having a look in your phone whether you like it or not, warrant or not.

Still feel like you do not have any problems with this law?

[stevec66]

With this whole issue becomes a mute point if you put a password on your cell phone, as you have the right to remain silent which includes not answering any questions, even if they ask you for your password!!

Posted via CB10