3 ms·
> In Canada key disclosure is covered under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 11(c) which states "any person charged with an offence has the r
by bouchard 6y ago
> In Canada key disclosure is covered under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 11(c) which states "any person charged with an offence has the right not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;"[10] and protects the rights of individuals that are both citizens and non-citizens of Canada as long as they are physically present in Canada.[11]
>In a 2010 Quebec Court of Appeal case the court stated that a password compelled from an individual by law enforcement "is inadmissible and that renders the subsequent seizure of the data unreasonable. In short, even had the seizure been preceded by judicial authorization, the law will not allow an order to be joined compelling the respondent to self-incriminate."[12]
>In a 2019 Ontario court case (R v. Shergill), the defendant was initially ordered to provide the password to unlock his phone. However, the judge concluded that providing a password would be tantamount to self-incrimination by testifying against oneself. As a result, the defendant was not compelled to provide his password.
According to the Wikipedia article cited when "Canada" is clicked, key disclosure laws don't apply which is the opposite of what the site claims.
Or am I misunderstanding something here?
- justanotheranon 6y agoin the Snowden leaks, there is a document that lists the opinions of NSA's legal counsel about a list of collection practices. one of the questions is whether passwords sent across the network are considered metadata or content. NSA legal says passwords are metadata. which means NSA can scan all traffic for passwords and steal them and no FISA warrant is needed, nor a subpoena. of course NSA already has a dozen programs just for extracting passwords from UPSTREAM passive collection. and presumably this means everyone in the FVEYS gets access to everyone's passwords, since they pool their capabilities and collection. whatever the Courts rule about local cops and passwords, it doesnt apply at the level of SIGINT collection, which enjoys its own separate and secret system of laws.
- justanotherc 6y agoWhat does the NSA have to do with Canadian law? Last I checked we weren't the 51st state...
- bouchard 6y agoCanada is part of the Five Eyes and might share what they find if thought useful. Anyway, the point is that the website claims canadian courts can lawfully demand your password/key (key disclosure law) even though the reference cited (Wikipedia) says the exact opposite.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bouchard 6y agoJust realised you were answering to another comment and not its parent... Disregard my previous answer.
- tonyarkles 6y agoI was wondering the same thing! I wonder if the Wikipedia article has changed (a quick glance at the history doesn’t seem to suggest that it was). One part that isn’t mentioned in the article though is how the Canadian legal system would handle someone who has password-protected records about someone else. For example, you and I are friends, and I am on trial. Would the courts be able to subpoena your iMessage history with me? If you refused to provide your password, would you be charged with contempt? It’s not an 11(c) situation, because you’re not being compelled to be a witness against yourself.