Skip to main content

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

The controversial issue of lawful access rules, which address questions of police access to Internet subscriber information and the interception capabilities at Canadian telecommunications companies, has long been played down by Canadian governments.

When the policy proposals first emerged in the early 2000s, the Liberal government focused on the anti-terrorism and anti-spam benefits. Subsequent Conservative proposals promoted the ability to combat child pornography and, most recently, cyberbullying.

Story continues below advertisement

Yet when the Conservatives passed lawful access legislation in late 2014, it seemed that more than a decade of debate had delivered a typical Canadian compromise.

The new legislation eliminated liability concerns for Internet service providers that voluntarily disclose basic subscriber information and created a series of new police powers to require access to, and preservation of, digital data.

The law faced some criticism, but more contentious proposals involving mandatory warrant-less disclosure of personal information and government-prescribed surveillance capabilities for telecom networks were not included.

Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the R v. Spencer case in June, 2014, that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information such that a warrant is required for disclosure in most circumstances.

Notwithstanding the legislative resolution and renewed legal certainty, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale has quietly revived the lawful access debate with a public consultation that raises the prospect of new rules that would effectively scrap the 2014 compromise.

Ironically, the focus this time is the public's demand for amendments to Bill C-51, the Conservatives' anti-terrorism law that sparked widespread criticism and calls for reform during last year's election campaign.

In other words, the balance of Canadian privacy is being put at risk by a policy initiative the purports to fix privacy.

Story continues below advertisement

The Public Safety consultation skips over the years of lawful access debate by putting everything back on the table, acknowledging that the law was updated less than 24 months ago but suggesting that more change may be needed.

For example, it implies that the "lack of consistent and reliable technical intercept capability on domestic telecommunications networks" presents a risk to law-enforcement investigations.

Yet left unsaid is that the prior proposed solutions in the form of government-mandated interception capabilities were rejected because of the enormous cost, inconsistent implementation and likely ineffectiveness of standards that would exempt many smaller providers.

The consultation also renews the possibility of easier access to basic subscriber information. Even after the Spencer court decision, transparency reports from many of Canada's largest telecom companies indicate that law enforcement still regularly obtains access to subscriber information.

The current approach strikes a balance that reflects the need for access for investigative purposes and the privacy protections to which all Canadians are entitled.

The consultation hints that changes to the basic subscriber information access system are coming with an emphasis on "the needs of law enforcement and national security agencies and the impact of those measures on industry" before any reference to privacy law.

Story continues below advertisement

In fact, Mr. Goodale places another controversial issue on the policy table, noting that encryption technologies are "vital to cybersecurity, e-commerce, data and intellectual property protection, and the commercial interests of the communications industry" but lamenting that those same technologies can also be used by criminals and terrorists.

Given its widespread use and commercial importance, few countries have imposed decryption requirements. However, this year's controversy involving access to data on an Apple iPhone owned by one of the San Bernardino, Calif., shooters revived the debate over access to encrypted communications, and the consultation asks Canadians to comment on the circumstances under which law enforcement should be permitted to compel decryption.

The consultation remains open until Dec. 1, but the message from the government is clear: The cost of changing Bill C-51 comes with a significant privacy price.

The anti-terrorism provisions that sparked concern will be examined, but so too will be lawful access rules that have enormous implications for Canadian business, law enforcement and the broader public.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter