[Newsbot]

Title: Where you've been on Net not private, judge rules
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: uwish
Date: 2009-02-13 06:44:06
Canadian

[acidcomplex]

i hope this judge gets hit by a bus

[Choban]

I can hear the uproar already.
Personally I don't care if they can see what I'm surfing as I'm not a pervert/Anarchist/Terrorist/Criminal/Pedophile.
But there will be people, and most of them will be everyday folks who will cry about invasion of privacy.

[DrCaleb]

Full.
Drive.
Encryption.

[DrCaleb]

Choban wrote:

But there will be people, and most of them will be everyday folks who will cry about invasion of privacy.

Post up a file listing of your 'cookies' directory.

[ridenrain]

I can't say I have a problem with this. It's not like a private conversation or a closed door meeting.
The only thing that would be a problem is the business and personal details that are sent to financial and government sites.

[RUEZ]

acidcomplex wrote:

i hope this judge gets hit by a bus

Ya that's a normal response.

[Choban]

DrCaleb wrote:

Choban wrote:

But there will be people, and most of them will be everyday folks who will cry about invasion of privacy.

Post up a file listing of your 'cookies' directory.

An Ontario Superior Court ruling could allow police to routinely use Internet protocol addresses to find out the names of people online, without any need for a search warrant.

Theres nothing in this article that says the general public will have access to this information, just investigative forces, plus with the sheer # of net useers in Canada alone it would require a huge manpower base to look at "everyone" online. The case in question for this article was against a man who was already suspected of child porn, do no wrong and don't fear big brother looking where you don't want them to.
I'd be against it if it was to be general knowledge for anyone to access.

[DrCaleb]

Choban wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

Choban wrote:

But there will be people, and most of them will be everyday folks who will cry about invasion of privacy.

Post up a file listing of your 'cookies' directory.

An Ontario Superior Court ruling could allow police to routinely use Internet protocol addresses to find out the names of people online, without any need for a search warrant.

Theres nothing in this article that says the general public will have access to this information, just investigative forces, plus with the sheer # of net useers in Canada alone it would require a huge manpower base to look at "everyone" online. The case in question for this article was against a man who was already suspected of child porn, do no wrong and don't fear big brother looking where you don't want them to.
I'd be against it if it was to be general knowledge for anyone to access.

... because 'Big Brother' has your best interests in mind.

I'm against any unnecessary invasion of my privacy, even if it's 'for the children'. Whether I'm doing right or wrong - it's my privacy and I refuse to give it up willingly.

IMHO, Police need a search warrant if they want my IP addy. Not that it will do any good.

[Scape]

Exactly, so what's the point? If you are online your info is being broadcast. The culture of anonymity is not something law enforcement is going to bound to.

[DrCaleb]

Scape wrote:

Exactly, so what's the point? If you are online your info is being broadcast. The culture of anonymity is not something law enforcement is going to bound to.

If I use the phone, I don't expect that the police are listening just because I use a wireless phone and it's easy to listen. If they are listening, I expect they have a warrant.

Because they are the Police.

[DrJones]

This is a big ruling, but ultimately I'm not so sure it changes much. Prior to this, if the police could trace a crime (i.e. child porn) to a specific IP address, they could get a warrant to force the ISP to provide subscriber info. From there, they get an address, and get a search warrant to search the subscriber's home.

This ruling allows them to skip that first step, which in most cases was virtually automatic anyway. But still, surprising...

[Scape]

DrCaleb wrote:

Scape wrote:

Exactly, so what's the point? If you are online your info is being broadcast. The culture of anonymity is not something law enforcement is going to bound to.

If I use the phone, I don't expect that the police are listening just because I use a wireless phone and it's easy to listen. If they are listening, I expect they have a warrant.

Because they are the Police.

If you are using skype to place the call the old rules do not apply and those rules are a formality at this point. Frankly, the laws are only good in so far as they protect the police from court action as they will be at least somewhat certain that the suspect the likely perpetrator but beyond that they are sadly not enforceable nor are they practical.

Abuse in the form of bearing false witness and political motivated imprisonment are the consequence of this new future but there are no viable civil liberties body that can defend your liberty. Only you are in control of that and when you use a decentralize network you are relinquishing that liberty as there is no way to secure the net.

The more power we surrender to a central authority in the guise of protecting ourselves from the threat of terror the more our quality of life disintegrates. It is a fragile balance and there is no clear answers.

[Heavy_Metal]

first case that this is used is going right to the Supreme Court and it is going to get quashed quicker than a sky diver meeting pavement.

[Tricks]

Does this also mean that something like MSN conversations or E-mail conversations are not private? Or is this only where one has visited?