Improving Privacy Protection, But by How Much?

55 Criminal Reports (6th) 394, 2008

4 Pages Posted: 22 Aug 2012

See all articles by Steve Coughlan

Steve Coughlan

Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law

Date Written: 2008

Abstract

The discussion of reasonable expectation of privacy in R. v. M. (A.) is extremely useful. In the wake of Tessling," many courts had effectively reduced the protection offered by s. 8 based on two arguments: that what was detected was an emanation in the public domain similar to heat coming from a house, and that what was discovered merely related to informational privacy and was not part of the biographical core of such data. Justice Binnie's decision puts paid the notion that either of these arguments is a trump card. He suggests that generalizing about "emanations" is not a useful approach, and that the nature of the particular technology used and its interference with liberty must be engaged in each time. With regard to informational privacy, he unambiguously reaffirms what had frequently been missed in Tessling, that the protection extends at least to the biographical core of personal information, but is not limited to that and extends further.

Keywords: reasonable expectation of privacy, privacy, Tessling, personal information, technology

Suggested Citation

Coughlan, Steve, Improving Privacy Protection, But by How Much? (2008). 55 Criminal Reports (6th) 394, 2008 , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2133463

Steve Coughlan (Contact Author)

Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law ( email )

6061 University Avenue
6061 University Ave
Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4H9
Canada

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
23
Abstract Views
270
PlumX Metrics