eyeball Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 Crime is always evolving. Crime involving social media and the technology it uses didn't exist a couple of decades ago. The fear of crime is always evolving too. Whatever crimes you're alluding to I don't think they're anywhere near as dangerous to my well-being as increasing the power of the police or the state is. What has the state done to you that makes you need protection? The state is paranoid - it's lost it's grip and it's out of control. The protocols laid down by the court as to how and why the evidence can be obtained are pretty specific. If they don't follow them the courts will not be amused. I lost a lot of faith in the SC today. It seemed to be about the only thing left that was providing a check against the state's abuse of power. These are sad and increasingly dangerous times we live in. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Wilber Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 The fear of crime is always evolving too. Whatever crimes you're alluding to I don't think they're anywhere near as dangerous to my well-being as increasing the power of the police or the state is. I see, there is no crime involving social media. The state is paranoid - it's lost it's grip and it's out of control. No, I think the paranoia is at your end. I lost a lot of faith in the SC today. It seemed to be about the only thing left that was providing a check against the state's abuse of power. These are sad and increasingly dangerous times we live in. Yes they are, The SC understands that. You don't seem to. The ruling makes it very clear that the police can only search a phone in order to get evidence specific to the crime being investigated. It will not allow fishing expeditions. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
WWWTT Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Not in Canada...the police can continue to interrogate. No lawyer required....no protection from Section 7 of The Charter. "Dragnet" and Miranda do not apply in Canada, just on the TV shows watched. Wrong answer! Section 2 b and 11 g Police are fully aware they can ask anything they like, you should also be aware in Canada that you do not need to answer any questions. WWWTT Edited December 12, 2014 by WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
WWWTT Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 The "right to remain silent" is not a guideline. Invoke that and cops can't do anything - at least until your lawyer shows up. There's no actual "right to remain silent" in the Canadian charter. But it is fully within your rights to not discuss anything with anybody. So therefore you have the right to remain silent. Canadian law is a lawyers wet dream! WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 Guys, you can't go wiping the phone. The cops can only search it if they're looking for evidence and you've been arrested already. If you wipe your phone under that scenario, you are destroying evidence. You will be charge with another crime, even if there was nothing on your phone. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 There's no actual "right to remain silent" in the Canadian charter. But it is fully within your rights to not discuss anything with anybody. So therefore you have the right to remain silent. Canadian law is a lawyers wet dream! WWWTT There certainly is a right to remain silent in the Canadian Charter. Read before you post. Quote
dre Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 We have a Charter of Rights and a Supreme Court to interpret those rights. The SC has ruled on when and how the police can search phones. The police also have an obligation to ensure that evidence is not destroyed before it can be used. This is a contentious issue and the courts will have to be very careful when it comes to preventing abuse. It shouldnt be a contentious issue. There no logic reason why a mobile phone should be treated any differently than a landline. The current warrant system has given the police plenty of license, and plenty of power to sieze and monitor private communication, and has provided checks and balances against abuse as well. This ruling is a huge mistake, and in my view underscores the reason for much stronger constitutional protections for privacy that take into account new technologies and circumstances. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 Crime is always evolving. Crime involving social media and the technology it uses didn't exist a couple of decades ago. What has the state done to you that makes you need protection? The protocols laid down by the court as to how and why the evidence can be obtained are pretty specific. If they don't follow them the courts will not be amused. Crime is always evolving but the concepts related to liberty and freedom remain the same. The basic idea of the right to privacy was that private citizens would be able to communicate in private, and that the government could only infringe on that in narrow circumstances. With technology the mediums have changed and that has given the authorities a chance to put their foot in the door. But if a private conversation is deserving of protection that protection should be applied whether the participants are talking in a restaurant, or on a land-line, or in mail, or email, or cell-phone, or across two cans connected by a string. Why would the exact same communications be protected across one medium and not another? And the answer is simple... some people are hoping that new technologies will give them the right to access previously protected communication simply because they travel through the air and not a wire. Nobody with even the faintest grasp of logic should buy that. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wilber Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Crime is always evolving but the concepts related to liberty and freedom remain the same. The basic idea of the right to privacy was that private citizens would be able to communicate in private, and that the government could only infringe on that in narrow circumstances. With technology the mediums have changed and that has given the authorities a chance to put their foot in the door. But if a private conversation is deserving of protection that protection should be applied whether the participants are talking in a restaurant, or on a land-line, or in mail, or email, or cell-phone, or across two cans connected by a string. Why would the exact same communications be protected across one medium and not another? And the answer is simple... some people are hoping that new technologies will give them the right to access previously protected communication simply because they travel through the air and not a wire. Nobody with even the faintest grasp of logic should buy that. This ruling doesn't allow intercepting conversations, that still requires a warrant. It's about evidence stored on a phone. Evidence that needs to be gathered before it can be destroyed. The same as getting paper evidence before a perp can put it in an incinerator. Edited December 12, 2014 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 Wrong answer! Section 2 b and 11 g Police are fully aware they can ask anything they like, you should also be aware in Canada that you do not need to answer any questions. What ? This exactly what has already been stated. Canadians do not have the right to a lawyer during police questioning. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 What ? This exactly what has already been stated. Canadians do not have the right to a lawyer during police questioning. Wrong....again. You have the right to remain silent and have the right to talk with a lawyer before you might decide to answer questions. You don't even have to identify yorself, but if you lie about your identity you can be charged with that. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 For a guy who beaks off about Canada so often you don't know much about the law here apparently. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 According to a Canadian lawyer I just heard interviewed, make sure you keep your cell phone password locked. A cop can demand your phone but he can't force you to open it or give them the password. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) Some Canadians spend so much time watching American cop shows they often get confused about rights in their own country. Canadians do not have the right to a lawyer during police questioning, unless they are wintering (as usual) in the good 'ole USA. I love this....the Canadian Supremes defining rights in terms of what Americans have...must be that TV thing again. Canadian suspects of serious crimes do not have a constitutional right to have a lawyer present during questioning by authorities, the Supreme Court of Canada said today. In three decisions released Friday, a sharply divided court ruled on a suspect's right to have counsel, specifically whether the Charter's right to counsel extends beyond being able to call and talk to a lawyer after being arrested. In the central case, the court ruled 5-4 that Canadians have no right to have a lawyer sit in during an interrogation. "The charter does not mandate the presence of defence counsel throughout a custodial interrogation," the majority decision said. "Precedent is against this interpretation." The court said police cannot force a suspect to participate in an interrogation, but that the suspect does not have the right to have a lawyer there if they chose to participate in the interrogation. ....The court specifically noted Canadians do not have the same rights as Americans do during interrogations. http://www.ctvnews.ca/no-right-to-lawyer-during-questioning-scc-rules-1.561357 Edited December 12, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 Some Canadians spend so much time watching American cop shows they often get confused about rights in their own country. Canadians do not have the right to a lawyer during police questioning, unless they are wintering (as usual) in the good 'ole USA. I love this....the Canadian Supremes defining rights in terms of what Americans have...must be that TV thing again. Canadian suspects of serious crimes do not have a constitutional right to have a lawyer present during questioning by authorities, the Supreme Court of Canada said today. In three decisions released Friday, a sharply divided court ruled on a suspect's right to have counsel, specifically whether the Charter's right to counsel extends beyond being able to call and talk to a lawyer after being arrested. In the central case, the court ruled 5-4 that Canadians have no right to have a lawyer sit in during an interrogation. "The charter does not mandate the presence of defence counsel throughout a custodial interrogation," the majority decision said. "Precedent is against this interpretation." The court said police cannot force a suspect to participate in an interrogation, but that the suspect does not have the right to have a lawyer there if they chose to participate in the interrogation. ....The court specifically noted Canadians do not have the same rights as Americans do during interrogations. http://www.ctvnews.ca/no-right-to-lawyer-during-questioning-scc-rules-1.561357 You don't have to speak, and you have the right to talk to a lawyer. He/she does not have to be present. Quote
GostHacked Posted December 12, 2014 Author Report Posted December 12, 2014 For a guy who beaks off about Canada so often you don't know much about the law here apparently. Stop feeding the troll. Quote
WWWTT Posted December 12, 2014 Report Posted December 12, 2014 There certainly is a right to remain silent in the Canadian Charter. Read before you post. I must have missed it then. What section? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2014 Report Posted December 13, 2014 I must have missed it then. What section? WWWTT Section 7 It's actually section 11©: the right not to incriminate yourself. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.