Welcome to the second issue of the CCLA ebulletin. We appreciate the comments you made to our first instalment. Please continue to contact us with your feedback!
Bienvenue à ce deuxième numéro du bulletin électronique de l’ACLC. Merci de vos réponses et rétroactions. Vos commentaires sont très appréciés.
Nathalie Des Rosiers
General Counsel – Avocate générale
*****
Privacy Caution – Laptops Fair Game for Border Officials/ La fouille des ordinateurs aux douanes
The question of when customs officials should be permitted to search laptop computers has received significant media attention following the arrest of Nova Scotia bishop Raymond Lahey, who was charged with possession of child pornography after his computer was searched at a Canada-US border crossing. Members of the public have expressed both surprise and concern to CCLA upon learning that the files on their laptops could be searched when they cross a Canadian border. Concerns stem from the fact that laptop computers are capable of containing large amounts of personal and confidential information which, though perfectly legal, can reveal many private details about people. Personal photographs, writings, internet surfing habits, and bank records are just a few examples of the types of information that can be easily gleaned from a quick laptop search.
There’s no question that laptop searches can be invasive. At the same time, the power of the government to investigate people and their possessions is heightened at border crossings – this raises questions about just how far search powers extend at borders. For example, should customs officials be able to search a laptop computer simply because it is being brought across a border, or should they have a reasonable belief that it contains illegal material before doing so? To date, courts have not often had to consider this issue. In at least one case, however, a court held that customs officers are permitted to search laptops at will without any reasonable belief requirement. This finding seems to support the approach that the Canada Border Services Agency has taken to this issue to date.
CCLA has filed an access to information request seeking policy guidelines, training materials and any other documents related to laptop searches to further clarify when such searches are likely to be conducted by border officials. We’re concerned that, if used too broadly, any authority to search laptops could result in significant privacy violations for people who have done nothing wrong. At present, however, it appears that travellers should be cautious about storing private information on any computer that they take abroad, as it is unclear when it may or may not be searched. Please send us your comments and questions as we continue our work on this issue.
Depuis l’arrestation de l’évêque, Raymond Lahey, accusé de possession de pornographie juvénile découverte lors d’une fouille de son ordinateur à la douane, nous avons reçu de nombreuses demandes d’information à ce sujet.
En effet, les ordinateurs contiennent beaucoup d’information de nature privée: des photos de famille, des documents bancaires, des journaux intimes, des bandes audios préférées ou un historique de sites internet visités. Par ailleurs, les pouvoirs de l’État aux frontières sont élargis. La question se pose s’il y a des limites aux pouvoirs des douaniers. Par exemple, peuvent-ils fouiller n’importe quel ordinateur, simplement parce que l’ordinateur traverse la frontière, ou les douaniers doivent-ils avoir des raisons de croire que l’ordinateur contient de la preuve d’une infraction criminelle? Jusqu’à présent, les tribunaux ne se sont pas prononcés souvent sur cette question. Cependant, dans au moins une affaire, les tribunaux n’ont pas exigé la démonstration de motifs raisonnables de croire pour légaliser la fouille. Cet arrêt semble soutenir l’approche actuelle de l’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada.
Néanmoins, l’ACLC continue sa veille et invite les membres du public à communiquer leurs inquiétudes et expériences. Le pouvoir des douaniers pourrait être abusé et il serait important que certaines limites y soient apportées. Pour l’instant, cependant, les voyageurs doivent être prudents quant aux informations de nature confidentielle qu’ils sauvegardent sur les ordinateurs.
****
How should Canadians respond to hate speech?/ Comment réagir à la propagande haineuse?
A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently declared that the Canadian Human Rights Act’s prohibition on Internet hate speech is unconstitutional. The ruling, which is being challenged in front of the Federal Court, unleashed a fury of commentary on both sides of the debate.
As is often the case, CCLA shares the concerns of both sides. We too are shocked and appalled at the prevalence of hateful and bigoted speech on the Internet. Words can, and do, have an enormous impact on individuals and communities. All Canadians should be deeply concerned by the effect prejudiced speech has on our society. At the same time, however, CCLA is troubled by government censorship being proposed as the answer. Freedom of speech has little meaning if we are not willing to extend it to those with whom we strongly disagree. As advocates of freedom of speech, we often find ourselves defending Canadian individuals’ freedom to express opinions that are controversial, insulting and even highly offensive.
Just because we take the position that the law should not prohibit individuals from saying offensive things, however, does not mean that we think Canadians should remain passive when reading or hearing hateful speech. As individuals, as members of civil society, as employees, employers, government or private entities, we all have a duty to speak out against prejudiced speech wherever we encounter it. Those who make hateful and discriminatory remarks should be called out and criticized. In CCLA’s view, Canadians must absolutely respond to hate speech, and resoundingly affirm that it has no place in our society, but we must respond with more speech, not less.
Le Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne a récemment déclaré inconstitutionnelles les dispositions de la Loi fédérale sur les droits de la personne relatives à propagande haineuse. La décision est controversée et sera portée devant la Cour fédérale d’ici peu. La décision soulève donc la question de savoir comment une société démocratique doit réagir face à la propagande haineuse. Nous sommes tous choqués par l’abondance de propos haineux sur l’Internet, propos qui sans aucun doute, affectent les personnes visées par de tels messages. Doit-on pour autant accepter la censure de ces messages par un organisme gouvernemental comme la Commission des droits de la personne?
L’ACLC a depuis longtemps suggéré que la liberté d’expression n’a de sens que lorsqu’elle protège l’expression de propos démesurés, provocateurs, voire même répugnants. Affirmer que ce n’est pas la place du gouvernement de censurer des propos, même haineux, ne veut pas dire qu’il ne faut rien faire. Au contraire, cela impose aux individus de dénoncer ces propos et ceux qui les mettent de l’avant.
Si la censure est inacceptable, le silence l’est tout autant.
******
Police and security agents will have increased ability to intercept and monitor electronic communications if new legislation introduced by the federal government last summer becomes law.
The proposed legislation (Bills C-46 and C-47) empowers police and security agents to compel subscriber information from telecommunications and internet service providers without obtaining a warrant, a marked departure from current law. The proposed powers would also give government agents the right to obtain a broad range of electronic data, which could reveal when and with whom suspects have communicated electronically and where they have physically been. To access this data, agents would only have to convince a judge that they have a reasonable suspicion that it relates to the commission of a crime, as opposed to the current standard of reasonable grounds to believe generally employed for search warrants. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than reasonable grounds to believe.
The alleged justification for the lower, and in some cases non-existent, warrant requirements set out in the legislation is that the relevant information does not reveal all that much about a person and, thus, should attract a lower expectation of privacy. CCLA does not accept this argument. Subscriber and electronic communications data can expose extremely intimate details about people’s lives by revealing their internet browsing histories or other habits. If police, for example, obtained the internet history of a certain IP address and were then able to match up that information with a specific name, they could learn where that person had been on the internet. This data could reveal that person’s religious practices, medical history and sexual preferences, in addition to a seemingly endless array of other personal information, such as banks, shopping addresses and children’s music preferences.
As such, the proposed “cyber surveillance” powers undermine the privacy rights of all Canadians. By reducing the level of oversight required when state agents want to obtain electronic communications data, the proposed legislation creates an unacceptable risk that the surveillance powers would be abused. Such risks cannot be tolerated, particularly since a compelling case for why these powers are needed has not been made.
While the CCLA is not opposed to law enforcement authority having the tools they need to prevent crime in the digital age, we believe that any new powers must respect privacy values. Privacy Commissioners around the country have also expressed reservations about the proposed legislation. CCLA also believes that any additional police powers must be subject to comprehensive independent oversight. CCLA will be urging the Federal Public Safety Committee to recommend revision of the government’s “cyber surveillance” legislation.
Deux projets de loi (C-46 et C-47), présentement devant le Parlement, visent à accroître les pouvoirs des corps policiers et des organismes chargés de la sécurité nationale d’intercepter et de saisir les communications électroniques.
Dans un premier temps, les projets de loi permettent aux policiers et agents de sécurité d’obliger les fournisseurs de services de télécommunication à révéler l’identité des internautes et ce, sans mandat. Ceci est un changement significatif dans notre droit.
De plus, les projets de loi permettront aux policiers et agents de sécurité de saisir des données telles que l’historique des courriels, le texte de messages envoyés par téléphone, l’information sur les sites de réseautage comme Facebook. Dans ce deuxième cas, les policiers devront obtenir un mandat mais le standard de preuve requis est différent de celui que notre droit exige présentement. Selon les projets de loi, les policiers devront prouver qu’ils ont des motifs raisonnables de soupçonner qu’une infraction a été commise alors que présentement, le droit exige que les policiers aient des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’une infraction a été commise. Cela peut sembler jouer sur les mots, mais il est évident que le standard proposé est moins sévère. Il est difficile de comprendre pourquoi le gouvernement juge nécessaire de procéder à ces changements et quel sera l’impact de ces changements. Déjà, la plupart des mandats de perquisition sont accordés. Pourquoi est-il nécessaire de changer le standard?
L’ACLC reconnaît l’importance de s’assurer que les services policiers aient les outils juridiques nécessaires pour faire leur travail, mais les pouvoirs policiers doivent s’exercer dans le respect de la vie privée et des principes du droit criminel. Les Commissaires à la vie privée partout au Canada ont exprimé de fortes réserves par rapport à ces changements législatifs. Nous invitons nos membres à faire de même. Certaines modifications sont peut-être nécessaires mais nous n’avons peut-être pas besoin de mécanismes de “cyber surveillance” policière.
*******
Borovoy honoured, board member appointed to police commission/Honneurs et Nominations
A. Alan Borovoy, the former General Counsel of CCLA received an honorary doctorate from the University of Waterloo on October 24. This is Alan’s fifth honorary degree. He was the head of the CCLA for 41 years.
CCLA Board Member Brian A.F. Edy has been appointed to the Calgary City Police Commission, effective November 9. He is a Calgary-based lawyer with a particular interest in cases involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Brian is a former President of the Alberta Civil Liberties Association and a past President of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Association of Alberta.
A. Alan Borovoy, avocat général de l’Association pendant 41 ans, a reçu un doctorat honorifique de l’Université de Waterloo le 24 octobre dernier. C’est le 5e doctorat honorifique pour Me Borovoy qui a pris sa retraite de l’Association le 30 juin dernier.
Brian A.F. Edy, membre du Conseil de direction de l’ACLC a été nommé à la Commission de police de la Ville de Calgary le 9 novembre dernier. Basé à Calgary, Me Edy a été président de l’Alberta Civil Liberties Association ainsi que président de la Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Association of Alberta.
