Post Tagged with: "information demand"

folder-6 by Michael Swan https://flic.kr/p/bDk2My CC BY-ND 2.0

Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk

The government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 has attracted mounting concern, particularly the stunning decision to target everyone who provides services in Canada which creates near limitless targets for warrantless disclosure demands. Department of Justice officials have confirmed that Bill C-2 extends far beyond just telecom companies to services such as financial institutions, car rental companies, and hotels. The inclusion of professional services that frequently face strict confidentiality obligations deserves greater scrutiny as the approach virtually guarantees a constitutional challenge alongside the challenge on privacy grounds in light of the previous Supreme Court of Canada rulings in Spencer and Bykovets.

The implications for the legal community, who face strict solicitor-client confidentiality requirements, are particularly notable. Under Bill C-2, lawyers could be compelled to confirm whether they have provided services to client, whether they have information about the client, and when they provided the service, including when a person became a client. If they are aware of other service providers, they must provide that information as well. These disclosure demands come without a warrant or court oversight and lawyers could be barred from advising their clients about the demand for a year. Lawyers would undoubtedly seek to challenge the demand, but would only have five days to do so.

Read more ›

June 25, 2025 — 4 comments — News
Transparency by Jay goldman https://flic.kr/p/5J3VDr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Tactics Combine Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy

Earlier this week, I wrote about how the government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 may make this the most dangerous lawful access proposal yet, exceeding even the 2010 bill led by Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. The post emphasized the broad scope of the information demand power. Unlike prior lawful access proposals that targeted telecom and Internet companies, Bill C-2 targets anyone that provides a service to the public. This could include physicians, lawyers, accountants, financial institutions, hotels, car rental companies, libraries, and educational institutions. The list literally never ends. Each of these service providers could be compelled to confirm whether they have provided services to any subscriber, client, account, or identifier. They must also disclose whether they have any information about the subscriber, client, account or identifier as well as advise where and when they provided the service. On top of that, they must advise when they started providing the service and list the names of any other person that may have provided other services. All without a warrant or court oversight.

Department of Justice officials provided a briefing on the provisions yesterday and confirmed this reading of the bill. Officials acknowledged that Bill C-2 extends far beyond just telecom companies to services such as financial institutions, car rental companies, and hotels. When asked about hospitals, physicians, and other health professionals, the officials affirmed that they were covered as well (officials claimed that there would still be the need for a criminal investigation, but that is incorrect since this applies to any Act of Parliament, not just the Criminal Code).

Read more ›

June 20, 2025 — 3 comments — News
privacy-is-dead by td-london https://flic.kr/p/62afS1 CC BY-NC 2.0

“Big Brother Tactics”: Why Bill C-2’s New Warrantless Disclosure Demand Powers Extend Far Beyond Internet and Telecom Providers

The government’s inclusion of warrantless information demand powers in Bill C-2 may make this the most dangerous lawful access proposal yet, exceeding even the 2010 bill led by Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. The initial concern regarding the bill’s warrantless disclosure demand unsurprisingly focused on whether the proposal was consistent with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence upholding the reasonable expectation of privacy in basic subscriber information (there is a strong argument it is not). The application of this new power was generally framed as a matter for telecom and Internet companies, given that companies such as Bell, Rogers, and Telus are typically the focal point for law enforcement seeking information on subscriber activity. However, it has become increasingly apparent that this is an overly restrictive reading of the provision. The Bill C-2 information demand power doesn’t just target telecom providers. It targets everyone who provides services with the prospect of near limitless targets for warrantless disclosure demands.

Read more ›

June 18, 2025 — 10 comments — News
Phonebooks galore by Tim Welch https://flic.kr/p/wAs3S CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

More Than Just Phone Book Data: Why the Government is Dangerously Misleading on its Warrantless Demands for Internet Subscriber Information

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.

Read more ›

June 6, 2025 — 2 comments — News