The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is one of several committees in the House and Senate conducting hearings on artificial intelligence. I appeared before the committee yesterday (my fourth appearance on the issue in recent months), but rather than reiterate previous testimony on privacy, copyright, and transparency, I focused on the big issue of the moment: bans on social media and AI chatbots for children. The committee had been hearing from many supportive witnesses who emphasized the risk of harm associated with AI. Indeed, one Senator asked the panel before mine to raise their hands if they supported a ban, and virtually all hands went up. I was unsure about how my comments would be received, but I found the Senators open to debate on the issue. A video of my opening remarks, together with the transcript, is posted below. A future Law Bytes podcast episode will delve into the discussion that followed.
Post Tagged with: "privacy"
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.
The Illusion of Protection: Why Canada’s Growing Push to Ban Social Media for Kids Won’t Work
The momentum behind a social media ban for Canadian minors has been building for months. The federal Liberals voted at their April policy convention to back a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts and AI chatbots, the government’s expert panel on online safety is studying the issue, protesters have now rallied on Parliament Hill calling for it, and on Saturday night, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew told a Winnipeg fundraiser that his government will be the first in Canada to ban social media and AI chatbots for kids. Kinew did not specify which kids, when it would happen, or how it would be enforced, none of which appeared to matter to the audience. The political appeal of a ban is obvious, since concerns about social media’s effects on young users are widely shared. Yet the policy itself is a terrible idea that will not work. This post examines at least six reasons why an outright age-based ban, particularly one that extends to AI chatbots, is the wrong response to a serious issue.
Addressing the AI Policy Challenge: My Appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications
Earlier this week, I appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications as part of its study on AI regulation. This follows earlier appearances before the House of Commons Heritage and Industry committees on the same issue. The hearing led to robust exchanges with multiple Senators on the intersection of AI policy with issues such as privacy, copyright, online harms, and sovereignty. I plan to post clips from the hearing in a future Law Bytes podcast, but in the meantime, my opening statement provides a good sense of my views on AI regulation with respect to privacy, copyright, and the need for an AI Transparency Act. A video of the opening statement is embedded below, followed by the text.
Lawful Access Heads to Committee: The Opposition Found Its Voice, the Government Never Found Its Defence
After several days of debate in which the opposition to lawful access seemed half-hearted at best, the Conservatives woke up on Monday. MP after MP rose to argue, correctly, that Bill C-22 represents an unprecedented surveillance threat: mandated metadata retention (including location information) for up to a year, security vulnerabilities built into the interception architecture the bill requires, and a weakened legal standard for access to subscriber information. After days of debate with the government visibly struggling to defend its own legislation, this is precisely what the opposition should be targeting (coverage from day one, day two, day three).
Recent Posts
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal” 
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook 
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 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots 
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests
