The newspapers are trumpeting the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Spencer, as well they should. It was a good, thoughtful decision, one that conveys a strong understanding of privacy.
The case, on appeal from Saskatchewan, dealt with a situation where police requested (and received) subscriber information from an ISP based on an IP address. The information was revealed by the ISP in response to a request with no warrant. The SCC was asked to determine whether this was an unreasonable search and seizure in contravention of s.8 of the Charter and they determined that it was.
Until this decision, (some) Canadian ISP’s were of the opinion that exceptions for information revealed to certain bodies for law enforcement, security or related purposes as set out in s. 7 of PIPEDA authorized the provision of personal information without the necessity of a warrant. Today’s decision puts an end to that practice.
In examining the subject matter of the search, the court rejected a limited approach that saw the information as merely the name and address of an ISP subscriber, holding that to do so was to miss the fact that the information at issue was the subscriber information as linked to particular Internet activity as well as the inferences that might be drawn from that profile (para 32, emphasis mine).
The court also employed a new and nuanced tripartite understanding of information privacy, looking at privacy variously as secrecy; as control over information; and as anonymity. (para 38)
It is this final category of privacy as anonymity where the decision perhaps makes its greatest contribution. In relation to user online activity, the Court focused extensively on the idea of privacy as anonymity, writing at para 46 that:
Moreover, the Internet has exponentially increased both the quality and quantity of information that is stored about Internet users. Browsing logs, for example, may provide detailed information about users’ interests. Search engines may gather records of users’ search terms. Advertisers may track their users across networks of websites, gathering an overview of their interests and concerns. “Cookies” may be used to track consumer habits and may provide information about the options selected within a website, which web pages were visited before and after the visit to the host website and any other personal information provided...[t]he user cannot fully control or even necessarily be aware of who may observe a pattern of online activity, but by remaining anonymous — by guarding the link between the information and the identity of the person to whom it relates — the user can in large measure be assured that the activity remains private…
Ultimately, the Court concluded that there was (or could be) a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the anonymity of their online activities. Given this reasonable expectation of privacy, the police obtaining the subscriber information from the ISP without a warrant was a violation of s.8 of the Charter and thus an unconstitutional search.
This finding is an important one and not just for the privacy of individual internet users. Indeed, in light of current concerns about security and cyberbullying, as currently expressed in C-13 in S-4. C-13, the newest iteration of the government’s lawful access legislation combined with cyberbullying provisions, contains provisions for voluntary warrantless disclosure. The Court’s strong recognition of a constitutional reasonable expectation of privacy in such information is in direct opposition to the presumptions underlying such provisions. S-4, which would update PIPEDA, has been criticized as expanding the expanding scope of voluntary disclosure, an approach which must also be reconsidered in light of today’s decision.
Government has long sought to justify lawful access-type legislation as creating the new powers necessary in order to address new technologies. In its decision, the Court addresses concerns expressed by law enforcement that requiring a warrant could impede or even facilitate the investigation of online crime, countering at para 49 that:
In light of the grave nature of the criminal wrongs that can be committed online, this concern cannot be taken lightly. However, in my view, recognizing that there may be a privacy interest in anonymity depending on the circumstances falls short of recognizing any “right” to anonymity and does not threaten the effectiveness of law enforcement in relation to offences committed on the Internet. In this case, for example, it seems clear that the police had ample information to obtain a production order requiring Shaw to release the subscriber information corresponding to the IP address they had obtained.
This case dealt with child pornography – that the SCC are clear that a warrant was necessary in this case indicates that the privacy interest is an important one, not to be overridden easily. This too should be read as a warning to the Government that expansion of intrusive powers into personal privacy must be grounded in demonstrable issues rather than mere unsupported assertions of necessity.