Canada Supreme Court Rules Police Need A Search Warrant To Get Person's IP Address

What is the ruling?

Writing for the majority, Justice Karakatsanis emphasized the importance of safeguarding Canadians' online privacy by extending constitutional protection to IP addresses. The court ruled that obtaining IP addresses without a warrant constitutes an unreasonable search under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Justice Karakatsanis held that an IP address is the linchpin between an internet user and their online activities, warranting a reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, dissenting opinions, led by Justice Côté, contended that the majority had expanded the scope of information derived from IP addresses. The dissent held that IP addresses alone lack the capacity to reveal a user's ultimate identification, challenging the reasonableness of expecting privacy in this regard. Questions regarding control over IP addresses and their inherently non-private nature were central to the dissent's perspective.

What are the implications of it?

The majority decision highlights the evolving landscape of privacy in the digital age. It acknowledged the internet's role in empowering private corporations to collect user information, thereby increasing the state's surveillance power. The ruling asserts that judicial oversight is essential to curb the state's online reach, ensuring the Charter's consistency in safeguarding citizens' privacy.

This ruling echoes similar debates on the protection of personal data globally, drawing parallels with the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2018, the European Court of Justice, in Benedik v Slovenia, scrutinized the legality of obtaining subscriber information associated with dynamic IP addresses.

The Dissenting Opinion:

Justice Côté's dissent raised crucial points about the limited information that IP addresses can reveal on their own. The dissent argued that IP addresses, being subject to change by internet service providers, are hardly private and do not disclose core biographical information. The dissent also emphasized the potential risk of upsetting the balance between privacy interests and law enforcement needs.

Notably, law enforcement officials expressed concerns over the potential impact on investigations. RCMP Sgt. Kerry Shima, responsible for an internet child exploitation unit, warned that the ruling could hinder investigations, particularly those involving child exploitation, by limiting swift action and giving offenders a chance to evade detection.