Everyone in my CLD419: children and technology course should read this. Not only is it taking up the important issue of tracking child pornography, but it is also talking of the world into which all children are growing up in. It speaks to the potential that everything you ever do on the internet can and will be trackable. And that you must live your life assuming that you will be watched. From what we know about the need for autonomy in proper child development, and no doubt in the lives of adults, what does this say? Sorry to note that since none of you have probably ever had the joy of reading foucault, you might miss the import of this. But I’m just the science/teach teacher.
Slashdot | Ontario Court Wrong About IP Addresses, Too
Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton comments on a breaking news story out of the Canadian courts:
“An Ontario Superior Court Justice has ruled that Canadian police can obtain the identities of Internet users without a warrant, writing that there is ‘no reasonable expectation of privacy’ for a user’s online identity, and drawing the analogy that ‘One’s name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state.’ But why in the world is it valid to compare an IP address with a street address in the phone book?”
Read on for Bennett’s analysis.
Where you’ve been on Net not private, judge rules
An Ontario Superior Court ruling could allow police to routinely use Internet protocol addresses to find out the names of people online, without any need for a search warrant.
Justice Lynne Leitch found that there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy” in subscriber information kept by Internet service providers, in a decision issued this week.
The decision is binding on lower courts in Ontario, and it is the first time a Superior Court level judge in Canada has ruled on whether there are privacy rights in this information that are protected by the Charter.
The ruling is a significant victory for police investigating such crimes as possession of child pornography, while privacy advocates warn there are broad implications even for law-abiding Internet users.
“There is no confidentiality left on the Internet if this ruling stands,” said James Stribopoulos, a law professor….
“One’s name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state,” Judge Leitch said.
The reasoning of the judge misses the context of what police are seeking, suggested Mr. Stribopoulos, who teaches at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.
“It is not just your name, it is your whole Internet surfing history. Up until now, there was privacy. An IP address is not your name, it is a 10-digit number. A lot more people would be apprehensive if they knew their name was being left everywhere they went,” he said.