Public Post
No warrant needed to trace Internet use
TORONTO, Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A judge in Canada has ruled that Internet users have no expectation of privacy and police can use track people through Internet protocols without warrants.
The ruling by Ontario Superior Court Judge Lynne Leitch is binding on lower courts, and gives law enforcement a new tool to use in investigating such matters as child pornography, the National Post reported Friday.
Ruling in a child pornography possession case, Leitch found that the Canadian Charter does not provide a "reasonable expectation of privacy" regarding subscriber information retained by Internet service providers.
Police asked Bell Canada in 2007 for subscriber information on an IP address used by someone who had allegedly accessed child pornography. Bell provided the requested information without inquiring whether police had a search warrant.
The defense argued that police should have been required to obtain a search warrant before seeking such information.
Privacy rights advocates cautioned the ruling could have consequences for law-abiding Internet users, the Post said.
"There is no confidentiality left on the Internet if this ruling stands," James Stribopoulos, a law professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, said.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/02/13/No_warrant_needed_to_trace_Intern...
Rocket Dog
omg
1seriously?
wow!
this is bad!
that's socialism for you!
We're moving closer and closer to a Socialist state, so... Just look at how civil rights are being trampled on - most recently, the rancher in AZ, this guy who was filmed on his own property, and I heard something on FOX this morning about not being able to smoke in your own house. It's outrageous. Yet the ACLU crosses the line all the time.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson
CC, the thing on Fox was not a violation of privacy, IMO. That woman lives in an apartment, in a building that someone else owns. They have every right to try to preserve their property value by asking tenants to not smoke in their properties.
But, yeah, this is ridiculous.
3I have lived in the most fortunate generation in the entire history of mankind. My generation have seen more progress, a larger increase in our standard of not only in percentage terms but in actual. More freedom, more of anything. We benefited from the sacrifice of our parents (the greatest generation), and then screwed future generations, to keep our "high". We are probably the most hypocritical and selfish generation ever as well.
4Thanks for the update, tiff. I missed that part. That does make sense to me. I would think that there would be a 'no smoking' clause in the lease.
5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson
The democrats have already contacted the FCC to find a way to impose the "fairness act", without calling it that.
6Yeah, my fiance and I were outraged at first, and then we thought about it more. Even on Fox News they weren't portraying it correctly- they were saying that it had more to do with the smoke wafting into other people's apartments. I mean, really, it probably has more to do with the smoke getting into the carpet, paint, etc. You have to do a lot of work on a place that has been lived in by a smoker to re-sell or re-rent. That was just what we had thought about.
7Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.