Good. If a court can criminally charge an entity based on the activity coming from their IP address, clearly it’s considered an identifying piece of information - almost like a virtual SIN or ID card. So my opinion is that in the same way there are restrictions on who you are compelled to give your SIN to, there should be limits here as well. There are, of course, going to be times when authorities legitimately require that information to pursue an investigation/prosecution but they should have to prove that need.
deleted by creator
Police need a warrant, but websites and regular businesses can collect and link a user’s IP to their personal details and share it with anyone, with no court intervention required.
How does that make any sense?
Maybe police will find a way around this loophole by purchasing collected data as an “advertising partner.”
Rights are about being compelled to do something, mostly by the government.
In theory, if a business tells you that they’re going to share your IP address and you don’t like it, you can take your business elsewhere. In practice it’s not that simple, of course. There are too many huge companies who have monopolies or near monopolies, restricting your choice. They also often don’t disclose what they’re doing with your data. Also, often when they ask for consent, the consent is buried in some 400 page click-wrap agreement that you can’t realistically be expected to read before agreeing to.
Canada needs better privacy laws. Currently Europe is leading the way there, but Canada’s more aligned with the US, where corporate influence is much stronger.
Thats why police were signing up to info IP purchase vias ISP and other vendors so they could purchase suspects data outside of the warrant system
They’ll still have all the information. They just need a warrant if they want to admit they have the information. Computers are fundamentally insecure by design. Unless there is some sort of major overhaul in the basic structure of computing technology, we need to be a LOT more cautious about how we integrate computer technology into any sort of potentially sensitive area.
It flows that your IP is now PII, and will be subject to regulation. We’ll see when the first lawsuit happens.
I’m glad the decision swung in favour of Charter protection. I worry about the implications in terms of IPv6. Typically, addresses in that case are built out of the MAC address of the device. That means you can nail down not just the person but the exact device they were using. Since IPv6 is big in the cellular world, that means your phone.
I think both iOS and Android has the ability to randomize MAC
Well that’s not really what I’m referring to. I’m talking about EUI-64, which was supposed to make life easier by giving everyone an IP addressed based on their MAC address. You wouldn’t need to worry about address collisions with such an address, as it would be globally unique.
But following up on it a little just now, it seems the idea is falling out of favour precisely due to the privacy issues I was fretting about. I assume that means DHCP or some similar scheme will come to dominate just as with IPv4? I’m not an IT guy so I don’t know what the current thinking is on this.
‘It’s going to put a lot of children at risk’: RCMP
doubt
- in Canada *
Just want to make it clear that this is not a ruling in the United States, for those of us not looking closely at the community this post is in
So will this prevent Bell from giving away subscriber info to copyright trolls?
An IP address is basically public information when you do anything online. Why would police need a warrant to obtain it? Do they need a warrant to look at a phone book and find your street address? Why is this any different? Besides, hiding your identity online is one of the first things a hacker learns. This whole thing makes no sense and proves how out of touch some of these people are.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Writing for the majority, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis wrote that an IP address is “the crucial link between an internet user and their online activity.”
“Thus, the subject matter of this search was the information these IP addresses could reveal about specific internet users including, ultimately, their identity.”
Writing for the four dissenting judges, Justice Suzanne Côté disagreed with that central point, saying there should be no expectation of privacy around an IP address alone.
The court’s decision is based on the case of Andrei Bykovets, who was convicted of 14 online fraud for purchases from an Alberta liquor store.
In 2017, the Calgary Police Service investigating the alleged crime discovered that the store’s online sales were managed by Moneris, a third-party payment processing company.
At trial, Bykovets argued that he was the victim of an unreasonable search and seizure, a violation of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because he had an expectation of privacy with respect to his IP address.
The original article contains 537 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
