

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A recent ruling by Canada's Supreme Court cheered by privacy rights advocates has not stopped police from making warrantless requests to telecommunications firms for user data, an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Halifax Chronicle Herald has revealed.
That Court decision, issued in June, as CBC News reported at the time, meant that
Canadians have the right to be anonymous on the internet, and police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities [...]
The landmark decision [...] bars internet service providers from disclosing the names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials voluntarily in response to a simple request -- something ISPs have been doing hundreds of thousands of times a year.
Writing at OpenMedia.org, Eva Prkachin described the decision as "a huge win for privacy and civil liberties advocates across the country, who have been speaking out in massive numbers against proposed legislation that threatened to make warrantless disclosure the norm."
But the new reporting by the Alex Boutilier of the Star and Paul McLeod of the Chronicle Herald shows that though the number of warrantless requests has declined since the ruling, it has not fully stopped.
Large telecom firm Rogers now requires warrants for all data requests, but it continues to receive "a handful" of warrantless requests from law enforcement officials, Boutilier and McLeod report. Another of the country's three major telecoms, TELUS, did not state whether it continued to receive warrantless requests, while the third, Bell, only stated that it complied with the law.
A spokesperson from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) told the reporters that the Court decision did not make it necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant "for any and all basic subscriber information from a telecommunications service provider," and said that the force would continue to make warrantless requests in cases of emergencies, which the June decision allows.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A recent ruling by Canada's Supreme Court cheered by privacy rights advocates has not stopped police from making warrantless requests to telecommunications firms for user data, an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Halifax Chronicle Herald has revealed.
That Court decision, issued in June, as CBC News reported at the time, meant that
Canadians have the right to be anonymous on the internet, and police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities [...]
The landmark decision [...] bars internet service providers from disclosing the names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials voluntarily in response to a simple request -- something ISPs have been doing hundreds of thousands of times a year.
Writing at OpenMedia.org, Eva Prkachin described the decision as "a huge win for privacy and civil liberties advocates across the country, who have been speaking out in massive numbers against proposed legislation that threatened to make warrantless disclosure the norm."
But the new reporting by the Alex Boutilier of the Star and Paul McLeod of the Chronicle Herald shows that though the number of warrantless requests has declined since the ruling, it has not fully stopped.
Large telecom firm Rogers now requires warrants for all data requests, but it continues to receive "a handful" of warrantless requests from law enforcement officials, Boutilier and McLeod report. Another of the country's three major telecoms, TELUS, did not state whether it continued to receive warrantless requests, while the third, Bell, only stated that it complied with the law.
A spokesperson from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) told the reporters that the Court decision did not make it necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant "for any and all basic subscriber information from a telecommunications service provider," and said that the force would continue to make warrantless requests in cases of emergencies, which the June decision allows.
A recent ruling by Canada's Supreme Court cheered by privacy rights advocates has not stopped police from making warrantless requests to telecommunications firms for user data, an investigation by the Toronto Star and the Halifax Chronicle Herald has revealed.
That Court decision, issued in June, as CBC News reported at the time, meant that
Canadians have the right to be anonymous on the internet, and police must obtain a warrant to uncover their identities [...]
The landmark decision [...] bars internet service providers from disclosing the names, addresses and phone numbers of their customers to law enforcement officials voluntarily in response to a simple request -- something ISPs have been doing hundreds of thousands of times a year.
Writing at OpenMedia.org, Eva Prkachin described the decision as "a huge win for privacy and civil liberties advocates across the country, who have been speaking out in massive numbers against proposed legislation that threatened to make warrantless disclosure the norm."
But the new reporting by the Alex Boutilier of the Star and Paul McLeod of the Chronicle Herald shows that though the number of warrantless requests has declined since the ruling, it has not fully stopped.
Large telecom firm Rogers now requires warrants for all data requests, but it continues to receive "a handful" of warrantless requests from law enforcement officials, Boutilier and McLeod report. Another of the country's three major telecoms, TELUS, did not state whether it continued to receive warrantless requests, while the third, Bell, only stated that it complied with the law.
A spokesperson from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) told the reporters that the Court decision did not make it necessary for law enforcement to obtain a warrant "for any and all basic subscriber information from a telecommunications service provider," and said that the force would continue to make warrantless requests in cases of emergencies, which the June decision allows.