Supreme Court makes a reasonable decision on SMS 'wiretap'. But it's in Canada

[3chordcharlie]

Wiretap laws apply to text messages, court rules

By Emily Chung, CBC News Posted: Mar 27, 2013 10:00 AM ET

Canadians' digital communications should get the same privacy protection as voice conversations during police investigations, following a new ruling from Canada's top court.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police need a wiretap order to seize your text messages from your wireless provider as they are sent and received.

In her reasons for judgment, Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, supported by two other judges, wrote that the only practical difference between text messaging and traditional voice communications is the transmission process.

"This distinction should not take text messages outside the protection to which private communications are entitled," she said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/27/technology-telus-text-messages-scc-decision.html

A seemingly rare win for privacy, and our valuable rights WRT search/seizure. The main implication here is that 'fishing expeditions' can't be undertaken without some sort of probable cause (in which case it isn't exactly a fishing expedition).

 

[Juror No. 8]

No problem. Corrupt cops (LOL, redundant) have a million ways to manufacture probable cause.

 

[3chordcharlie]

No problem. Corrupt cops (LOL, redundant) have a million ways to manufacture probable cause.

There's some truth to this. However, police can't issue warrants by themselves.

In Canada, a wiretap warrant is much harder to acquire than a search warrant. I know that there are legal differences compared to the USA, where wiretaps are becoming law enforcement's national pass-time.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Need a warrant? No problem. All you need nowadays is an "anonymous tip", even if it comes from a scumbag informant on the police payroll. Many judges are all too happy to rubber stamp those.

Corrupt judges and corrupt cops go together like peanut butter and jelly.

 

[3chordcharlie]

You realize that rules of evidence applies after it is collected as well, right? So you need two judges to play along, not one.

Corruption is definitely an issue, but the higher the standard that has to be met, the less that is so.

This case was about keeping the standard high; as I said it is a rare win for privacy.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Need a warrant? No problem. All you need nowadays is an "anonymous tip", even if it comes from a scumbag informant on the police payroll. Many judges are all too happy to rubber stamp those.

Corrupt judges and corrupt cops go together like peanut butter and jelly.

Let me guess. You watched the movie Se7ev lately and you believe that's how everything in law works?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Let me guess. You watched the movie Se7ev lately and you believe that's how everything in law works?

LOL, it's actually worse.