Government and law enforcement justifications for warrantless access to Internet subscriber information has long been defended on the grounds that the information being demanded carries little privacy interest. The go-to claim was always that it was “phone book information”, a reference to the largely discontinued practice of printing an annual public directory that included name, address, and phone number. The problem with that argument was that the information at issue included data points such as IP addresses and device identifiers, which could be used to track users and monitor online activity without a warrant. Moreover, linking a specific user to a specific IP address or other identifier effectively unlocks the door to potentially very sensitive information that is otherwise unavailable. Indeed, there is a reason that law enforcement logged over a million warrantless requests per year for basic subscriber information prior to the Supreme Court shutting down the practice.
Articles by: Michael Geist
Privacy At Risk: Government Buries Lawful Access Provisions in New Border Bill
The government yesterday introduced the Strong Border Act (Bill C-2), legislation that was promoted as establishing new border measure provisions presumably designed to address U.S. concerns regarding the border. Yet buried toward the end of the bill are lawful access provisions that have nothing to do with the border. Those provisions, which raise the prospect of warrantless access to information about Internet subscribers, establish new global production orders of subscriber information, and envision new levels of access to data held by electronic service providers, mark the latest attempt in a longstanding campaign by Canadian law enforcement for lawful access legislation. Stymied by the Supreme Court of Canada (which has ruled that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber data) and by repeated failures to present a compelling evidentiary case for warrantless access, law enforcement has instead tried to frame lawful access as essential to address everything from organized crime to cyber-bullying to (now) border safety. Much like the government’s overreach last year on online harms, Bill C-2 overreaches by including measures on Internet subscriber data that have nothing to do with border safety or security but raise privacy and civil liberties concerns that are bound to spark opposition. This post provides the background on lawful access and an overview of some Bill C-2’s provisions with more details on key elements to come.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 234: “Solutions Aren’t Going to be Found Through Nostalgia”: Mark Musselman on the CRTC Hearings on Canadian Content Rules
The CRTC recently wrapped up a two-week hearing on the Online Streaming Act that featured most of the usual suspects, though notably not the large streaming services. The Commission grappled with foundational issues such as modernizing the definition of Canadian content, instituting IP requirements, and introducing new discoverability rules into Canada’s broadcasting regulatory framework.
Mark Musselman is a former entertainment lawyer, longtime Canadian movie producer, current PhD student focused on cultural and legal policy, and the author of the White Paper Black Coffee substack. Having appeared many times before the CRTC, he joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss the recent Cancon hearing, breaking down the major issues of debate and identifying what was missing from the discussion.
Here We Go Again: Internet Age Verification and Website Blocking Bill Reintroduced in the Senate (With Some Changes)
The last Parliament featured debate over several contentious Internet-related bills, notably streaming and news laws (Bills C-11 and C-18), online harms (Bill C-63) and Internet age verification and website blocking (Bill S-210). Bill S-210 fell below the radar screen for many months as it started in the Senate and received only cursory review in the House. The bill faced only a final vote in the House but it died with the election call. This week, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, wasted no time in bringing it back. Now Bill S-209, the bill starts from scratch in the Senate with the same basic framework but with some notable changes that address at least some of the concerns raised by the prior bill (a fulsome review of those concerns can be heard in a Law Bytes podcast I conducted with Senator Miville-Dechêne).
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 233: Abdi Aidid on AI, the Law and the Future of Legal Practice
The discussion on the intersection between AI and the law, especially with respect to legal services continues to grow. From lawyers that mistakenly rely on AI generated cases to AI support for due diligence and comment review, the role of AI within legal practice has emerged as a critical issue. Professor Abdi Aidid is a law professor at the University of Toronto, where he has focused on these issues for many years, well before the public’s attention was captured by generative AI services like Chat GPT. Professor Aidid is currently a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at Yale Law School, he was a VP with BlueJ Legal, an early AI legal startup, and is the co-author of the The Legal Singularity: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Law Radically Better. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to discuss all things AI and the law, including what these technologies may mean for legal practice.
Recent Posts
Government Remains Silent as it Eviscerates Political Party Privacy in Canada By Fast Tracking Bill C-4 
Quebec’s Streaming Regulation Bill 109: Unconstitutional, Unnecessary, and Unworkable 
Why the Government’s Plan for Warrantless Access to Internet Subscriber Information Will Lead to Millions of Disclosure Demands Each Year 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 235: Teresa Scassa on the Alberta Clearview AI Ruling That Could Have a Big Impact on Privacy and Generative AI 
What Is With This Government and Privacy?: Political Party Privacy Safeguards Removed in “Affordability Measures” Bill
