Secure messaging service Signal yesterday became the latest company to warn that Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, could force it to leave the Canadian market rather than comply with provisions it says would compromise its end-to-end encryption and create new cybersecurity risks. Signal vice-president Udbhav Tiwari told the Globe and Mail that the company “would rather pull out of the country than be compelled to compromise on the privacy promises we have made to our users.” The comments are part of a steady stream of similar warnings from Apple, Meta, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Cybersecurity Advisors Network, and the chairs of the U.S. House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees. Despite growing concern, the government’s response has been to launch a misleading social media campaign and repeatedly insist that the experts and companies are mistaken.
Blog
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics
With opposition to Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, mounting, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree has turned to social media with a video defending the bill as one that “respects Canadian privacy and Charter rights.” The video signals that the government has noticed the growing public concern. But the case against the bill, which I argued in committee testimony last week and in a series of earlier posts, raises at least four issues on which the government has not engaged: mandated metadata retention (which is ignored in its Charter Statement), a lower threshold for access to subscriber information that hurts privacy, security risks now alarming Canada’s closest allies, and an oversight architecture the oversight body itself says is incomplete.
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests
Just as Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is under study at the House Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security (I review my appearance yesterday in this post) U.S. Congressional leaders have written to Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree warning that the bill threatens to harm “U.S. national security and economic interests by undermining trust in American technology and inviting reciprocal demands from other nations.” The message is clear: U.S. leaders are concerned that lawful access demands go so far as to compromise the privacy not only of Canadians, but of Americans too.
Government Has a Choice: Why an AI Chatbot Ban for Kids is an Even Worse Idea Than a Social Media Ban
The frenzy to ban kids from social media continues to grow with Culture Minister Marc Miller telling a House of Commons committee that the government has no choice but to act. Miller’s comments are consistent with the federal Liberal policy convention vote backing a minimum age of 16 and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew announcing that his government will be the first in Canada to ban kids from both social media and AI chatbots. The problem, as I documented in detail last week, is that good intentions do not make for good policy. In this case, a social media ban is bad policy because it does not address the underlying problems with the platforms, evidence to date suggests it doesn’t work, and it creates its own harms. But the bad policy does not end there, as the possibility of extending that same framework to AI chatbots is now squarely on the table. This post examines the implications of a ban on kids’ use of AI chatbots, arguing that such an approach is even worse than a social media ban. To be clear, regulation of AI chatbots is needed, but a ban leaves the genuine concerns associated with AI chatbots largely untouched.
Wilful Blindness?: How the Lawful Access Charter Statement Skips Bill C-22’s Most Constitutionally Vulnerable Provisions
The committee hearings on Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, kick off later today with an appearance by Justice Minister Sean Fraser and Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who will presumably use the opportunity to affirm their support for the bill and reject concerns that certain elements are inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That position reflects the government’s Charter statement on the bill, which was released late last month. The statement walks through the Charter implications of new provisions such as the confirmation of service demand, yet what makes it particularly notable is that it avoids addressing some of the bill’s biggest concerns altogether with scant or no attention paid to mandated metadata collection and the risks associated with systemic vulnerabilities. Indeed, it is as if the government believes that if it ignores the potential violation of fundamental rights, the issue magically disappears.
Recent Posts
Named to Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers 
Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Asking Google Maps to Defy the U.S. on Lake Ontario Would Undermine Canadian Digital Sovereignty 
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain 
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences 
Why Ottawa Will Likely Join the U.S. in Opposing the Quebec Online Streaming Law at the Centre of the Trade Battle
