An unanimous decision from SCOC says that a warrant is still needed for tombstone phone information from internet/telephone providers.
Can't wait for the governments response.
Can't wait for the governments response.
SCOC Does It Again, Take That Harper
- Thread starter blackrock13
- Start date
It's about something affecting far more Canadians. Setting aside that C-36 isn't law yet?
What this does though, yet again, is demonstrate how completely out of touch the Harper government is with the real world. This bill hadn't even passed yet…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-users-privacy-upheld-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2673823
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-users-privacy-upheld-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2673823
Sorry, but the Supremes rule on laws that are, because one side or the other makes a case that serious injustice has been done by a lower court's decision. In this case (from the reference you gave) the laws were: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, ss. 163.1(3), 163.1(4), 487.014(1) — Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5, s. 7(3)(c.1)(ii) — Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8.
I absolutely agree Harper is only in touch with his Base and his Inner Machiavelli, never the real world, but whatever bills he hasn't yet passed, it wasn't the one in this tale.
Yet it may very well affect the Cyber bullying bill, because the Harperites wanted to pass another master plan Omnibus bill, sneaking other stuff that had littl to do with bullying.
You're fully correct sir - if you read the news link the SCC decision was with respect to one particular case but the decision directly counters the effects of proposed bill C-13 which is being hotly debated before the house because of the privacy issues involved and the fact that it's not constitutional; it wasn't C-13 which was debated by the SCC because it hasn't passed yet.
Here's the quote from the article sited above:
"The decision could affect two federal government bills before the House of Commons, rendering parts of them unconstitutional:
Bill C-13, which is intended to crack down on cyberbullying, but includes provisions that would give police easier access to the metadata that internet service providers and phone companies keep on every call and email from their customers.
Bill S-4, known as the digital privacy act, which would update the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act that governs how the private sector handles private information. It includes provisions that also make it easier for police to obtain basic subscriber information without a warrant."
The actual decision in this case was that the police should seek a warrant and not just expect internet providers to hand any and all information to them. Appropriately, in my opinion, the charges still weren't dismissed in this case.
But it does serve as another slap in the face to the justice department, and further enforces the perception that they don't really have a clue what they're doing.
Not even the Supreme Court can render a bill— something thing that has yet to be passed—unconstitutional, not even in part. Not even if CBC News says they did. Although if Harper were to use his right to refer such things to them in advance, they could advise him that pain could well be in his future.
But your point about Harpers' peculiar Constitutional and Charter blindness is well put. And that fogginess seems to pervade our favourite whipping Bill C36 as well. If only the CBC was right and it didn't take days of hearings spread over years to render the same crap in new bottles as unconstitutional as the old.
At least if there is any consolation to be found in all of this, it is that we are likely on the road to the eventual decriminalization of the industry, even though it is still far off by the sound of things.
No, you're correct, and having read the article I'll repeat myself again: the SCC did not consider this bill - this bill is not passed into law yet - and CBC did not report that they found bill C-13 unconstitutional. The reporter pointed out that parts of the proposed bill C-13 would be "rendered unconstitutional" by the decision today, because under this charter decision the police require a warrant to obtain your name and address if they are concerned about something which you enter on these boards, for instance. There are implications for these boards which would deliver the industry a double-whammy if C-13 is passed together with bill C36.
If the bills are passed into law, then I'm afraid it will lead to, as you say, "days of hearings spread out over years" before a decision is rendered.
Would not surprise given the stupidity going on in Adolf Harper's head. Seriously is this guy losing his marbles?
