Yesterday the federal government introduced Bill C-22, known as the Lawful Access Act, marking its third attempt in less than a year to pass sweeping surveillance powers. While the government claims the new bill is a more balanced this time around, privacy advocates and civil society groups are sounding the alarm, calling the legislation a blueprint for a “surveillance state.”
The bill is a standalone version of provisions previously buried in Bill C-2, which was shelved last fall following massive public outcry. While Part 1 of the new bill offers some improvements regarding warrantless data demands, Part 2 has been carried over almost entirely unchanged.
‘The Architecture of a Surveillance State’
Non-profit consumer advocate group OpenMedia, one of the leading voices against the bill, argues that the most dangerous elements remain intact. Under Part 2, the Minister of Public Safety can secretly order messaging apps, cloud services, and email providers to build law enforcement access into their networks, or essentially backdoors.
“The biggest privacy problem in Bill C-2 has been carried forward intact,” said Matt Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia, in a statement. “Part 2 of C-22 enables secret ministerial orders to any digital service Canadians rely on, with no public registry, no parliamentary approval, and no right for Canadians to even know it’s happening.”
A Massive Security Risk
University of Ottawa professor Dr. Michael Geist has also been scathing in his review, noting that the bill creates a permanent architectural feature that could be exploited by hackers or foreign intelligence. He warns that the “good news” in Part 1 is overshadowed by the “very bad” news in Part 2.
Geist points out that even with the government’s promise not to introduce “systemic vulnerabilities,” the definition of that term can be changed quietly by the government without a parliamentary vote. He concludes that the bill “envisions a significant change to how government agencies interact with Canadian communications networks.”
What Geist also brings up is the bill introduces a new term “electronic service provider”. This assumes the bill can go beyond telecoms and internet providers, moving into the realm of internet tech giants like Google or Meta, which offer digital services (apps like Gmail, Facebook, etc). That is definitely worrisome.
Small Wins in Part 1
Advocates acknowledge that Part 1 is an improvement. Warrantless demands are now limited to telecom companies, and police can only demand confirmation that an account exists without a judge’s sign-off. “The changes to Part 1 are real—we’ll take them,” Hatfield says, “but they don’t touch the part of this bill that should alarm every Canadian.”
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
