this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
137 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
18 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 25 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Police need a warrant, but websites and regular businesses can collect and link a user's IP to their personal details and share it with anyone, with no court intervention required.

How does that make any sense?

Maybe police will find a way around this loophole by purchasing collected data as an "advertising partner."

[–] TheGibberishGuy 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Wasn't there something like this already? Swear I read couple months ago something about a police force buying data off data brokers to get around protections in place.

[–] canis_majoris@lemmy.ca 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it happened in the US though.

Not that Canadian data standards are much higher.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

No the article was about the rcmp doing it too.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago

Oh, FFS. That doesn't even surprise me at this point!

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Thats why police were signing up to info IP purchase vias ISP and other vendors so they could purchase suspects data outside of the warrant system

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

It flows that your IP is now PII, and will be subject to regulation. We'll see when the first lawsuit happens.

[–] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm glad the decision swung in favour of Charter protection. I worry about the implications in terms of IPv6. Typically, addresses in that case are built out of the MAC address of the device. That means you can nail down not just the person but the exact device they were using. Since IPv6 is big in the cellular world, that means your phone.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think both iOS and Android has the ability to randomize MAC

[–] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Well that's not really what I'm referring to. I'm talking about EUI-64, which was supposed to make life easier by giving everyone an IP addressed based on their MAC address. You wouldn't need to worry about address collisions with such an address, as it would be globally unique.

But following up on it a little just now, it seems the idea is falling out of favour precisely due to the privacy issues I was fretting about. I assume that means DHCP or some similar scheme will come to dominate just as with IPv4? I'm not an IT guy so I don't know what the current thinking is on this.

[–] LanternEverywhere@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)
  • in Canada *

Just want to make it clear that this is not a ruling in the United States, for those of us not looking closely at the community this post is in

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 months ago

'It's going to put a lot of children at risk': RCMP

doubt

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 months ago

So will this prevent Bell from giving away subscriber info to copyright trolls?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Writing for the majority, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis wrote that an IP address is "the crucial link between an internet user and their online activity."

"Thus, the subject matter of this search was the information these IP addresses could reveal about specific internet users including, ultimately, their identity."

Writing for the four dissenting judges, Justice Suzanne Côté disagreed with that central point, saying there should be no expectation of privacy around an IP address alone.

The court's decision is based on the case of Andrei Bykovets, who was convicted of 14 online fraud for purchases from an Alberta liquor store.

In 2017, the Calgary Police Service investigating the alleged crime discovered that the store's online sales were managed by Moneris, a third-party payment processing company.

At trial, Bykovets argued that he was the victim of an unreasonable search and seizure, a violation of Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because he had an expectation of privacy with respect to his IP address.


The original article contains 537 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] cheezits@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

An IP address is basically public information when you do anything online. Why would police need a warrant to obtain it? Do they need a warrant to look at a phone book and find your street address? Why is this any different? Besides, hiding your identity online is one of the first things a hacker learns. This whole thing makes no sense and proves how out of touch some of these people are.