News

William Leask may seem an unlikely and unseemly poster child for the privacy rights of Canadian travellers, considering he will appear in a Fort Erie, Ont., courtroom today to learn his sentence for crossing the Peace Bridge with child pornography on his laptop computer.

But legal experts say his case raises a larger and often overlooked issue – the power police and security officials have to probe the vast amounts of personal information contained on mobile electronics. They can now get access to mountains of digital information without a search warrant by confiscating or searching physical devices such as laptop computers or cellphones equipped with e-mail, such as BlackBerrys, something experts believe represents a gaping hole in Canadian law.

“They used to say that wiretapping had the potential to be the atom bomb of privacy,” said Scott Hutchison, a Toronto-based lawyer who specializes in search-and-seizure law. “Well, if wiretapping was the atom bomb, then casual rules about computer seizures are the hydrogen bomb.”

Until recently, law enforcement officials who sought access to someone's call history, e-mails and other personal files were required to obtain a search warrant from a judge before accessing computer hard drives or phone records. But such legislation was enacted before e-mail-equipped cellphones and other mobile electronics became commonplace.

Mr. Leask's lawyer, Mark Evans, believes his client has good grounds for an appeal. Mr. Evans maintains that the search by the Canada Border Services Agency that uncovered the child-porn videos violated his client's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He argues that border guards shouldn't be able to scour the contents of a digital device without “reasonable suspicion” that it contains illegal content.

Security officials, including the CBSA, define laptops and BlackBerrys as “containers,” similar in scope to a paper file folder or a suitcase, which can be searched during a routine border crossing or following an arrest for evidence of a crime.

However, privacy advocates contend that such devices amount to more than mere containers and deserve distinct status under the law. They say security officials should be required to produce a warrant to gain access to the sensitive information they contain, even after the physical device itself has been seized.

In a paper world where the amount of information one person could carry was subject to physical limitations, the search powers of the police were not as dangerous to one's privacy, said Mr. Hutchison, who is also the author of the legal text Search and Seizure Law in Canada.

“So far, the courts have simply looked at the BlackBerry as a thing on your person, and once [security officials] have seized it, they can examine it,” he said. “The problem is that technology today has reached the point where the analogy between a BlackBerry and your paper Day-Timer isn't valid any more … the volume of material that you can have on it is huge, and it's a live device.”

The debate is not limited to Canada. Reports of U.S. border guards searching through travellers' electronic devices, and in some cases even copying information, prompted the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Asian Law Caucus to launch a joint lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security under the country's freedom of information laws, demanding that the agency disclose its policies on border screenings, including electronic searches.

The situation in the U.S. has reached the point where some businesses, such as Toronto-based law firm Blaney McMurtry LLP, now require that employees ensure their laptops are “wiped clean” of any sensitive information before they cross an international border. The firm is drafting a similar policy for its BlackBerry devices.

“We have a written policy which requires all members of our staff … to ensure that no confidential or privileged information resides on the hard drive or even in any place on the laptop when they cross over any international border,” said Lou Brzezinski, a senior partner with the firm.

Most experts agree that the U.S. Constitution states that normally, government officers would need a warrant to search through the contents of someone's BlackBerry, cellphone or laptop. However, Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, says border crossings are an exception.

“The early precedents in the States have suggested that they can [search a device] and that it doesn't matter that it is electronic,” he said.

According to a U.S. Department of Justice report titled Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations, when making decisions regarding electronic devices, agents are advised that “it helps to treat the computer like a closed container such as a briefcase or file cabinet.”

Officials at CBSA say their agents have the right to search the contents of any electronic device coming into Canada, including e-mails and call histories.

“We don't require reasonable ground to believe that an offence has been committed to examine goods for admissibility, and that includes electronic devices,” spokesman Christian Williams said.

Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian doesn't buy the argument that a BlackBerry is akin to a passive storage device.

“My fear isn't the seizure so much as the search,” she said. “I would argue very strongly that the likeness, in terms of what authorizes a search, should be similar to the authorization that is needed for a wiretap … where you need prior judicial authorization to do the search.”

Police and border officials should be required to obtain a search warrant to examine the contents of BlackBerry devices whether they are being examined at the border, following an arrest or after the physical device has been seized in the course of a more general investigation, Ms. Cavoukian said.

“If we don't place strong limitations on the features of the search, we're going to be in such a quagmire,” she said. “Remember, it's not just the individual who owns the BlackBerry, his or her information that is potentially at risk, it is all the other people who he or she has been communicating with.”