SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A TELUS building in Toronto. (Photo: Velnich)
Despite Landmark Ruling, Canada's Police Still Making Warrantless Demands for User Data
New investigation by Toronto Star, Halifax Chronicle Herald reveals continued practice in face of June Supreme Court ruling
Sep 17, 2014
A recent ruling by Canada's Supreme Court cheered by privacy rights advocates has not stopped police from making warrantless requests to telecommunications firms for user data, an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Halifax Chronicle Herald has revealed.
That Court decision, issued in June, as CBC News reported at the time, meant that
Canadians have the right to be anonymous on the internet, and police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities [...]
The landmark decision [...] bars internet service providers from disclosing the names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials voluntarily in response to a simple request -- something ISPs have been doing hundreds of thousands of times a year.
Writing at OpenMedia.org, Eva Prkachin described the decision as "a huge win for privacy and civil liberties advocates across the country, who have been speaking out in massive numbers against proposed legislation that threatened to make warrantless disclosure the norm."
But the new reporting by the Alex Boutilier of the Star and Paul McLeod of the Chronicle Herald shows that though the number of warrantless requests has declined since the ruling, it has not fully stopped.
Large telecom firm Rogers now requires warrants for all data requests, but it continues to receive "a handful" of warrantless requests from law enforcement officials, Boutilier and McLeod report. Another of the country's three major telecoms, TELUS, did not state whether it continued to receive warrantless requests, while the third, Bell, only stated that it complied with the law.
A spokesperson from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) told the reporters that the Court decision did not make it necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant "for any and all basic subscriber information from a telecommunications service provider," and said that the force would continue to make warrantless requests in cases of emergencies, which the June decision allows.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A recent ruling by Canada's Supreme Court cheered by privacy rights advocates has not stopped police from making warrantless requests to telecommunications firms for user data, an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Halifax Chronicle Herald has revealed.
That Court decision, issued in June, as CBC News reported at the time, meant that
Canadians have the right to be anonymous on the internet, and police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities [...]
The landmark decision [...] bars internet service providers from disclosing the names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials voluntarily in response to a simple request -- something ISPs have been doing hundreds of thousands of times a year.
Writing at OpenMedia.org, Eva Prkachin described the decision as "a huge win for privacy and civil liberties advocates across the country, who have been speaking out in massive numbers against proposed legislation that threatened to make warrantless disclosure the norm."
But the new reporting by the Alex Boutilier of the Star and Paul McLeod of the Chronicle Herald shows that though the number of warrantless requests has declined since the ruling, it has not fully stopped.
Large telecom firm Rogers now requires warrants for all data requests, but it continues to receive "a handful" of warrantless requests from law enforcement officials, Boutilier and McLeod report. Another of the country's three major telecoms, TELUS, did not state whether it continued to receive warrantless requests, while the third, Bell, only stated that it complied with the law.
A spokesperson from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) told the reporters that the Court decision did not make it necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant "for any and all basic subscriber information from a telecommunications service provider," and said that the force would continue to make warrantless requests in cases of emergencies, which the June decision allows.
A recent ruling by Canada's Supreme Court cheered by privacy rights advocates has not stopped police from making warrantless requests to telecommunications firms for user data, an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Halifax Chronicle Herald has revealed.
That Court decision, issued in June, as CBC News reported at the time, meant that
Canadians have the right to be anonymous on the internet, and police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities [...]
The landmark decision [...] bars internet service providers from disclosing the names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials voluntarily in response to a simple request -- something ISPs have been doing hundreds of thousands of times a year.
Writing at OpenMedia.org, Eva Prkachin described the decision as "a huge win for privacy and civil liberties advocates across the country, who have been speaking out in massive numbers against proposed legislation that threatened to make warrantless disclosure the norm."
But the new reporting by the Alex Boutilier of the Star and Paul McLeod of the Chronicle Herald shows that though the number of warrantless requests has declined since the ruling, it has not fully stopped.
Large telecom firm Rogers now requires warrants for all data requests, but it continues to receive "a handful" of warrantless requests from law enforcement officials, Boutilier and McLeod report. Another of the country's three major telecoms, TELUS, did not state whether it continued to receive warrantless requests, while the third, Bell, only stated that it complied with the law.
A spokesperson from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) told the reporters that the Court decision did not make it necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant "for any and all basic subscriber information from a telecommunications service provider," and said that the force would continue to make warrantless requests in cases of emergencies, which the June decision allows.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.