i dont’ get this ruling.

Your activities on the Internet are akin to your activities out in public—they’re not private and are possibly open for police scrutiny, according to an Ontario Superior Court. The ruling was made by Justice Lynne Leitch on—surprise!—a child pornography case. The judge said that there’s “no reasonable expectation of privacy” when it comes to logs kept by ISPs. Canadians, watch out, because everything you do online could soon be turned into legal fodder, even without a warrant.

The case in question came about when, in 2007, police asked Bell Canada to hand over subscriber information for a particular IP address that they suspected of accessing and “making available” child porn online. According to the National Post, the ISP handed over the name and contact information for the account without asking for a warrant, which is apparently typical among ISPs in Canada only if the request is related to a child porn investigation.

The lawyer for the defendant—the defendant being the husband of the woman whose name was on the account—disagreed with Bell Canada’s actions. He argued that since there were no accusations of luring a child or putting a minor in danger, a warrant should have been required. This argument was rejected by Judge Leitch, however, who equated the information to data that the state already has.

“One’s name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state,” she wrote. She also stated that Canada’s Personal Information Protection Electronics Documents Act allows for ISPs to give IP information to a “lawful authority,” which she interpreted as not requiring a warrant.

Though it’s clear that the ruling in the case (which is still ongoing) was made with good intentions, privacy advocates know what the road to hell is paved with. Critics fear that such a precedent could open the doors to police asking for information on all manner of Internet activities, ranging from the embarrassing to the questionable-but-legal, without judicial oversight.

One instructor from Toronto’s Osgoode Hall Law School argued that, even when criminal activity is suspected, a warrant should be required.

“[E]veryone wants to get at the child abusers,” professor James Stribopoulos told the National Post, which is why judges seem to be agreeing with Judge Leitch’s interpretation of the law. “It is not just your name, it is your whole Internet surfing history. Up until now, there was privacy. An IP address is not your name, it is a 10-digit number. A lot more people would be apprehensive if they knew their name was being left everywhere they went.”

IP addresses aren’t necessarily accurate indicators of who’s behind certain activities online. As many college campuses in the US have argued to the RIAA, IP addresses are reassigned often and no single student can be tied to a single IP address much of the time. IP address data can even be incorrect (or incorrectly matched up by ISPs), leading to some being unfairly accused of illegal activities.

Judge Leitch’s ruling has privacy advocates in Canada worried, as it is binding to lower courts in Ontario. “There is no confidentiality left on the Internet if this ruling stands,” Stribopoulos said.

“People got mad enough when they couldn’t smoke in bars anymore or bingo parlours,” said Sgt. Bryant Wood, a police officer in the eastern Ontario town of Port Hope.

“Now you’re telling them they can’t smoke in cars. At some point somebody’s going to snap along the way here.”

Nova Scotia is the only other jurisdiction in the country to have a similar law, though others are considering it. Ontario had previously banned smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces before the new legislation took effect late last month.

Wood’s comments came a day after one of his colleagues, Const. Tammie Hartford, pulled over 20-year-old Port Hope resident Tory Ashton and wrote him a $155 ticket for smoking in his vehicle with a minor present.

Ashton was transporting several passengers, including a 15-year-old girl. While the ticket was being written, the girl – who is a smoker – got out of the car and legally lit up a cigarette.

There is no law prohibiting a 15-year-old from smoking; it is only illegal for someone under 19 years of age to purchase or sell tobacco.

original

By MONICA DAVEY
Published: December 7, 2008

FARGO, N.D. — Federal Customs and Border Protection authorities are preparing to launch unmanned aircraft patrols from this state, the first time such monitoring will occur along the nation’s northern border.

A Predator B aircraft, delivered to Grand Forks on Saturday, will make runs along the northern edge of North Dakota using sensors that can provide video and detect heat and changes to landscape, Customs and Border Protection officials said.

The plane, which can go 260 miles per hour and fly as high as 50,000 feet, can stay aloft for 18 hours. The first missions, designed to help spot people crossing the border illegally or avoiding ports of entry, are expected to start next month.

Similar aircraft have patrolled the nation’s southern border since 2005, where they have helped lead to the discovery of more than 18,000 pounds of marijuana and 4,000 illegal immigrants, a spokesman for the agency said.

John Stanton, executive director of the service’s national air security operations, said the authorities decided to move to the northern border because enough aircraft were now available. (The base cost for the Predator is about $10 million.)

Along the entire northern border, Customs and Border Protection officials make about 4,000 arrests and intercept about 40,000 pounds of illegal drugs each year.

For the moment, though, the flights from Grand Forks will remain mostly along the 300 miles of the upper edge of North Dakota and a slim part of Minnesota, Mr. Stanton said.

Asked whether he expected to uncover a significant problem with drugs, border crossings or terrorism in northern North Dakota, Mr. Stanton said no one was sure.

“We hope to actually use this aircraft to measure that,” he said. “You don’t know what you don’t know.”

Some experts have questioned the safety of unmanned planes. In 2006, a Predator patrolling the southern border crashed near Nogales, Ariz.; no one was hurt and no property was damaged, but the plane narrowly missed a house. Investigators blamed human error; the pilot was at a control panel far from the plane.

“This aircraft has over 300,000 hours of use,” Mr. Stanton said. “We’ve been able to capitalize on other peoples’ mistakes and lessons. This is as safe as we can possibly make it.”

The aircraft, about 66 feet long and weighing more than 10,000 pounds, experienced minor setbacks on its way to North Dakota. It was expected to arrive in Grand Forks on Thursday from an Army field in Arizona, but officials reported maintenance problems and the flight was delayed a day. On Friday, the plane was forced to turn back after encountering poor weather and turbulence. It touched down at the Air Force base in Grand Forks on Saturday afternoon.

are we still really surprised when data like this comes in?

the powers that be changed their marketing tune (across the board) about 8 months ago from “global warming” to the more generic (and previously acceptable) “climate change” finding that “global warming” was having too hard a time coinciding with the numbers (other numbers).  It’s a bit like that mac ad that makes fun of PC because he stops using “vista” in favour of the fuzzy feeling “windows”.

Watching the presidential elections this go around is proof positive that the 2 year distraction of primaries, debates, halabaloo…is exactly that…a distraction from policy making which is happening in corporate board rooms and washington’s closed doors. i can’t believe that more canadians don’t see the states, cringe and call their MLA to make sure we don’t end up like that.

He’s a bit of a liberitarian, but that’s not nearly as bad a word in my vocabulary as some others and I’m glad he got his message out and good luck to him on Tuesday.