The government is expected to table the Digital Safety Act on Wednesday with reports that it will include a ban on social media for those under 16, framed as a “temporary” measure that platforms can exit once a new digital regulator certifies their safety standards. I have been writing about these issues, from the original Online Harms Act to mandated age verification and website blocking and now the kids’ ban, for several years. This FAQ gathers the analysis in one place, with links throughout to the longer pieces for anyone who wants to go deeper. The key takeaway is that a kids’ social media ban is an ineffective and harmful policy that raises privacy concerns for tens of millions of Canadians through mandated age verification requirements. The policy fails to address the underlying concerns with social media and the prospect of a “temporary” ban makes little sense since the requirement might be reversible, but the data collection and regulatory infrastructure are permanent.
Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh
Privacy
Bill C-22’s Clause-by-Clause Problem: The Government Includes Agencies Seeking Lawful Access Powers But Blocks the Privacy Commissioner’s Return
The House of Commons public safety committee started its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22 last week, the stage at which the lawful access bill’s actual statutory language is settled and the privacy safeguards are either written in or left out. The witnesses the committee included said a lot about the government’s commitment to addressing privacy concerns and to ensuring a balanced bill. Clause-by-clause reviews typically include departmental officials as witnesses, who provide support to the committee by answering technical questions. Years ago, officials were viewed as non-partisan, but today officials invariably defend the government’s position and subtly (or not so subtly) argue against amendments. Including non-departmental witnesses is very rare since they have already had the chance to make their case to the committee. Yet the RCMP and CSIS, the agencies that have lobbied for these powers and will wield them, were on hand last week to guide members through the Bill C-22 amendments. Those witnesses will be unlikely to support potential privacy-focused amendments. Even more astonishing, efforts to include Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, whose recommendations several of the amendments under consideration are drawn from, were rejected by Liberal MPs on the committee.
You Can’t Put the Toothpaste Back in the Tube: Why the Government’s Reported “Temporary” Plan for a Kids’ Social Media Ban Would Mean Mandated ID for Everyone
The Globe and Mail reports today that the government will introduce online harms legislation this week that includes a ban on social media for kids under the age of 16. The ban will be framed as a “temporary” measure with the prospect that the can re-establish service after a new digital regulator certifies that they meet its safety standards. I’ve written extensively about why a ban on social media and AI chatbots is a bad policy idea, but it is essential to emphasize that this measure is unlikely to be “temporary.” An age-based ban will require everyone in the country to prove their age before posting a photo on Facebook or uploading a video on TikTok. This raises enormous privacy concerns and turns the government’s AI for All strategy into ID for All.
AI for All, Details to Follow: Government Releases a Big-Spending AI Strategy That Is Still Short on the Specifics That Matter
The government today released its much-anticipated national AI strategy, an ambitious plan featuring a myriad of new programs and initiatives to support AI adoption. The strategy emphasizes trust, framing its approach as “AI for All.” Spending dominates the announcement, with money sprinkled across the economy as the government bets on the economic returns that flow from widespread AI adoption. Yet spending money is the easy part. What stands out is the deferral of many of the hard policy choices. The government has no plans for AI-specific regulation, instead relying on updated privacy rules and a reintroduction of online safety legislation. AI Minister Evan Solomon started the process by noting that the prior government had “over-indexed” on regulatory plans, and that perspective remains largely unchanged. There are real risks in bad legislation (see yesterday’s reset of the Online Streaming Act), but the Canadian government will never outspend the market on AI. For the Canadian government, supporting AI development must primarily involve creating the legal and regulatory frameworks that facilitate investment, trust, and adoption, and deferring the hard choices to later does not help.
New Privacy Rights in the Morning, Mandatory Metadata Retention in the Afternoon: How Bill C-22 Undercuts the AI Strategy Before It Launches
The government unveils its long-awaited national AI strategy this morning. AI Minister Evan Solomon has made it clear that the strategy will emphasize trust, noting that Canadians will only embrace the technology if they are confident their privacy is protected and safeguards are in place against potential harms. The privacy assurances are likely to take the form of a new private-sector privacy bill that includes European-style rules, stronger penalties, and recognizing privacy as a fundamental right. The government has proposed as much before, adding fundamental-rights language to the Consumer Privacy Protection Act in Bill C-27 before that bill died on the order paper. But the government is, at the same time, pressuring the public safety committee to pass Bill C-22, whose mandatory metadata retention regime is the single largest privacy risk in Canada in years and one that comparable countries have already struck down as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The disconnect is dizzying: the government cannot claim privacy as a fundamental right in the morning and enact mandatory metadata retention that overrides it in the afternoon.
Recent Posts
A Surveillance Treaty in Disguise: The Trouble With Canada’s Quiet Decision to Sign the UN Cybercrime Convention 
Rushing Lawful Access Backfires: Wyden Letter on Bill C-22 Highlights Political, Trade and Business Risks 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 276: Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard on Canada’s Access to Information Failures and Why Access Delayed is Access Denied 
Why the Government’s Plan for a Social Media Ban in Bill C-34 Is Unconstitutional 
Outdated Data and Dubious Comparisons: Digging into the Government’s AI Strategy Adoption Claims
