Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh
Privacy
Government Doubles Down in Defending Bill C-2’s Information Demand Powers That Open the Door to Warrantless Access of Personal Information
The return of the House of Commons from the summer break brings with it a resumption of debate on government bills. Topping the list this week is Bill C-2, the omnibus border measures bill, that buries dangerous lawful access provisions that open the door to warrantless access to personal information and increased surveillance capabilities in Canadian networks. I wrote multiple posts on the privacy concerns before the summer (here, here, here, here, here, and here), expressing concern not only with the substantive provisions but also with a bill that combines everything from border measures to restrictions on cash transactions to warrantless access for law enforcement to personal information. The risk is that no issue will get sufficient attention as major issues get lost among the myriad of disparate provisions. For that reason, the lawful access provisions in Parts 14 and 15 in the bill should be removed and contained, if at all, within a separate bill.
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law
The Online Streaming Act, the government controversial reform to the Broadcasting Act, continues to attract attention given an ongoing court challenge and backlash from the U.S. government. But there is another element of Bill C-11 that is deserving of attention. Due to what is likely a legislative error, the government deleted privacy safeguards that were included in the bill only two months after they were enacted. As a result, a provision stating that the Broadcasting Act “shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the right to privacy of individuals” was removed from the bill, leaving in its place two-near identical provisions related to official languages. The net effect is that with little notice (Monica Auer of FRPC spotted it), the Broadcasting Act has for the past two years included an interpretation clause that makes no sense and efforts to include privacy within in it are gone.
Commentary: Ensuring the Sovereignty and Security of Canadian Health Data
Following on our earlier Globe and Mail op-ed and Law Bytes podcast, I am pleased to co-author a commentary on health data sovereignty and security with Kumanan Wilson and Mari Teitelbaum in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The key points identified in the piece:
- Canada’s population-based health data are an invaluable resource that provide economic and health system opportunities through the development of health-related artificial intelligence algorithms.
- Concerns about the potential monetary value of these data, access by the United States for surveillance purposes, and how data often reside on cloud servers owned by US companies, make it essential that Canada redouble efforts to ensure the security and sovereignty of data.
- We suggest a multipronged approach that includes encrypting health data by design, requiring health data be hosted on Canadian soil (data localization), inserting a blocking statute into privacy laws, and investing in the development of Canadian sovereign cloud servers to host health data.
What Is the Canadian Government Doing With Its Incoherent Approach to TikTok?
My latest Globe and Mail op-ed notes that TikTok has long presented a thorny challenge for Western governments. The security and privacy concerns resulting from its link to China have pushed some to ban the app altogether. Others, cognizant of its enormous popularity with younger demographics and its support for the cultural sector, have sought to establish regulatory safeguards, required sales of controlling interest, or demanded localized versions that limit the potential for Chinese influence or interference.
Ottawa has faced many of the same issues, yet what has emerged is an incoherent approach that leaves Canadians with the worst of all worlds: less protection against security and privacy risks, less support for the cultural sector, and less certainty about what the government is trying to achieve.
Another Canadian Digital Policy Own Goal: Corporate TikTok Ban Leads to Millions in Lost Cultural Group Support
The government’s bad run of digital policy choices that led to blocked news links on Facebook and Instagram, ongoing litigation over mandated streaming payments, and the recent cancellation of the digital services tax, has paved the way for another costly loss. Last fall, the Canadian government announced the conclusion of its national security review of TikTok and arrived at a curious plan: ban the company from operating in Canada but leave the app itself untouched. The decision raised concerns about weakening privacy enforcement as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada acknowledged that it is easier to compel documents and support investigations if the company is in Canada (the results of a Privacy Commissioner investigation into TikTok have still not been released).
Recent Posts
Government Doubles Down in Defending Bill C-2’s Information Demand Powers That Open the Door to Warrantless Access of Personal Information 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 243: What Are Canada’s Digital Policy Plans as Parliament Returns from the Summer Break? 
Grocery Shopping While Jewish 
Privacy Lost: How the Government Deleted Bill C-11’s Key Privacy Principle Just Two Months After Passing it Into Law 
Out of Nowhere: TIFF Undermines Artistic Freedom of Expression With Forced Name Change of October 7th Documentary
