Month: June 2014

U.S. Supreme Court: Warrant needed to search cell phone of arrested individual

Here is another guest post I wrote for Samuel Trosow’s blog, on the recently-decided U.S. Supreme Court cell phone privacy case Riley v. California.

Sam Trosow

Here is a posting written by Lisa Di Valentino about the cell phone privacy decision issued last week from the US Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court: Warrant needed to search cell phone of arrested individual
by Lisa Di Valentino

Earlier this month, the Canadian Supreme Court handed down its judgement in R. v. Spencer, affirming that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in Internet browsing data. On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court had an opportunity to address Constitutional privacy interests in digital information, this time in a mobile phone. The question in this case is whether police, without a warrant, may search digital information in a cell phone taken from someone who has been arrested.

Riley v. California is a decision addressing two separate appeals, both related to the search of mobile phones pursuant to arrest. The facts of each case are set out below:

Case…

View original post 1,078 more words

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Supreme Court confirms importance of information privacy and Internet anonymity

Although it doesn’t touch on fair dealing in education, I have written a guest post for Samuel Trosow’s blog on the recent Supreme Court decision in R. v. Spencer, and its implications for information privacy.

Sam Trosow

Here is a posting written by Lisa Di Valentino about the internet privacy decision issued today from the SCC . . .

Supreme Court confirms importance of information privacy and Internet anonymity
by Lisa Di Valentino

Today, the Canadian Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited decision in R. v. Spencer. Daniel Therrien, Canada’s new Privacy Commissioner, has called it “a seminal decision”.

Spencer was convicted by the trial court of possession of child pornography. During the investigation, police made a request to Shaw (the ISP) for the name, address, and telephone number of the household associated with the particular IP address of the user who was sharing these files on a peer-to-peer site. The investigators did not have a warrant or production order for this information; Shaw voluntarily disclosed the data they were seeking. With the information in hand, the police obtained a search and seizure warrant…

View original post 1,106 more words

0 CommentsLeave a comment