Mandatory Key Disclosure and Self Incrimination in Canada
Jul 16, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2
W A R N I N G:
CONTAINS PHILOSOPHY
John LockeJean Jacques Rousseau
SOCIAL CONTRACT
3
Are you a pedophile? Are you a criminal? Did you sign a non-disclosure agreement with your client? Did you guarantee privacy to your client? Are you a Doctor or Lawyer with a duty to keep client’s information confidential?
Because…. privacy.
WHY ENCRYPT?
4
SEARCH & SEIZURE
5
Search or seizure
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
6
Reasonable expectation of privacy.
7
“[I]t is hard to imagine a search more intrusive, extensive, or invasive of one’s privacy than the search and seizure of a personal computer.” - Justice Morris Fish R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 at para 3
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
R. v. Cole, 2012 SCC 53, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 34 Employees may have a reasonable – though limited – expectation of privacy in their work computer.
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
R. v. Vu, 2013 SCC 60, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 657 Police had warrant to search house - warrant did not specify computers Do you need an additional warrant to search a computer? Can seize the computer, but require an additional warrant to search it.
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
R. v. TELUS Communications Co., 2013 SCC 16, [2013] Text messages carry the same reasonable expectation of privacy as voice conversations; therefore, you need a wiretap authorization.
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 212 A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their anonymity online.
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. FearonR. v. Fearon, 2014 SCC 77, [2014] S.C.R. 621 A person has an increased reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone, but police can search a cell phone incident to arrest if they follow four rules
8
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
9
Does it matter if you encrypt your data?
10
11
12
Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
13
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
24(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
14
SCC PRIVACY TREND
2012
2013
2014
2015
R. v. Cole
R. v. Vu
R. v. Telus
R. v. Spencer
R. v. Fearon
15
@ BORDER
16
ALAIN PHILIPPON
17
LOWER REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
@ BORDER
18
Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA)
Powers to search both people and goods coming into the country (includes files on your digital devices) Customs Act, RSC 1985, c 1, s 99(1)
Ability to search “any document in any form” – including electronic documents Customs Act, RSC 1985, c 1, s 2(1)
Files = “goods” and CBSA has the power to search these documents R v Leask, 2008 ONCJ 25 R v McDermin, 2008 CanLII 68135 (Ont SCJ) R v Whittaker (2010), 946 APR 334 (NBPC)
@ BORDER
19
What are they looking for?
Obscenity (Porn or Hate Literature) Political Opinion Copyright Infringement
@ BORDER
20
How do they pick me for a search?
• Importing something the CBSA deems to be suspicious • Travelled to and from “high risk” destinations • Single man traveling alone • Demonstrate “an interest in Pornography” • Associated, or are believed to be associated, with known
importers or exporters of materials the CBSA objects to.
TARGET @ BORDER
21
STANDARD @ BORDER
21
STANDARD @ BORDER
Reasonable & Probable Grounds
21
STANDARD @ BORDER
Reasonable & Probable Grounds
21
STANDARD @ BORDER
Reasonable & Probable Grounds
Reasonable Suspicion
21
STANDARD @ BORDER
Reasonable & Probable Grounds
Reasonable Suspicion
21
SEARCH WITHOUT SUSPICION (HUNCH)
STANDARD @ BORDER
Reasonable & Probable Grounds
Reasonable Suspicion
22
Suspicionless Search (Quick Look) >> Detailed Search
23
1. Take your stuff - CBSA can detain “goods” including your electronic device and its contents. Detentions can last for months
2. Search - Use forensic tools to ensure evidence is not corrupted or lost (EG - “IC-What-UC”) They can also copy everything on your electronic device (“Disc Image”) for later inspection. Take a Disc Image and run password-cracking software.
NOTE: CBSA has not released information on how information is “destroyed” after it is searched and found to be legal.
HOW @ BORDER
24
When you are crossing the border, if the CBSA decides to search your electronic
devices, there is nothing you can do about it.
@ BORDER
25
You will be asked for username and password.
(CBSA policy states you are not required to give it, unless a Court orders you to)
@ BORDER
26
Detained >> Right to Remain Silent Detained >> Lawyer Detained >> Right to request to be taken to the senior officer on duty for him or her to confirm whether there are reasonable grounds for the search.
Am I detained? Questioning or luggage searching by a customs official at a border crossing is not a “detention” If you are taken aside and required to submit to extensive searching and you cannot leave, you have been detained.
A search of your body must be done by a person who is the same sex as you.
RIGHTS @ BORDER
27
REALITY @ BORDER
BCCLA believes that refusing to provide a password is within your rights under Canadian law. NOT tested in Canadian courts (no guarantees)
Refusal >> Treated as suspicious (detailed inspection and detention of device) Refusal + Not Canadian >> risk denial of entry into the country Refusal >> Delay
28
Full Disc Encryption File Encryption Digital Steganography
OPTIONS…?
29
SELF-INCRIMINATION DO I HAVE TO PROVIDE MY ENCRYPTION KEY?
30
31
COMMONWEALTH vs. Leon I. GELFGATT, SJC-11358. Suffolk. Nov. 5, 2013. - June 25, 2014
Context: Mortgage Fraud - Accused admitted to existence of documents but not their contents
UNITED STATES
32
UNITED STATES
Testimonial: If the response requires a person “to make extensive use of ‘the contents of his own mind,’” producing those documents is testimonial.
Fifth Amendment: “no person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”
Generally: Testimonial >> CANNOT be compelled Non-Testimonial >> CAN be compelled
33
UNITED STATES
Strongbox keys - NOT testimonial Safe combinations - Testimonial
A safe key can be compelled, but a safe combination cannot;
A fingerprint that unlocks an iPhone can be compelled, but an iPhone’s numeric password cannot.
34
COMMONWEALTH vs. Leon I. GELFGATT, SJC-11358. Suffolk. Nov. 5, 2013. - June 25, 2014
UNITED STATES
Encryption keys are protected by the Fifth Amendment
Unless you already admitted to the existence and/or authenticity of the encrypted documents.
35
36
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
37
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
38
R. v. Hebert, 1990 CanLII 118 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151 at para. 47
“... the right to silence may be postulated to reside in the notion that a person whose liberty is placed in jeopardy by the criminal process cannot be required to give evidence against himself or herself, but rather has the right to choose whether to speak or to remain silent.”
- Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
CANADIAN CASES
39
2004
2010
R. v. Meron
R. c. Boudreau-Fontaine
CANADIAN CASES
39
2004
2010
R. v. MeronR. v. Meron, [2004] P.E.I.J. No. 95 The accused was asked to prov ide passwords for encrypted hard drives, but he refused to cooperate. The case gives no further detai ls about the context or consequences.
R. c. Boudreau-Fontaine
CANADIAN CASES
39
2004
2010
R. v. Meron
R. c. Boudreau-Fontaine
CANADIAN CASES
39
2004
2010
R. v. Meron
R. c. Boudreau-FontaineR. c. Boudreau-Fontaine, 2010 QCCA 1108 An accused cannot be ordered to produce their passwords for the benefit of an investigation against them.
CANADIAN CASES
39
2004
2010
R. v. Meron
R. c. Boudreau-Fontaine
R. C. BOUDREAU-FONTAINE
40
Problems:
1. Quebec Case 2. s.24(2) = Contextual
41
NO.
42
A judge orders you to provide your password or encryption key to police.
You say “No”
Contempt of a court order + Charter Challenge
43
Not worth it. RIGHTS!
44
WHAT WOULD I DO?
45
QUESTIONS
Related Documents
