Privacylawyer - Canadian privacy and technology law with David Fraser

An Overview of Part 2 of Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act 2026. Part 2 creates the "Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act", which will require electronic service providers to create new capabilities for law enforcement and national security folks to get access to customer information. #lawfulaccess #surveillance #privacy #charterofrights Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

A deep dive into the "Production Order for Subscriber Information" proposed in Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act. What is it? What does it do? What is different from the original proposal in Bill C-2 (the Strong Borders Act)? And what's the likely fatal flaw that will mean it will be found to be unconstitutional? My "Lawful Access" playlist, including episodes from this channel and other commentators: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV759uJFOchhpCq8rakXDYdwJP3xYSrtf Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

Lawful Access playlist, including my videos and from others on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLV759uJFOchhpCq8rakXDYdwJP3xYSrtf My Bill C-22 Lawful Access "deep dive" episode: https://youtu.be/tZFbTYttuN8?list=PLV759uJFOchhpCq8rakXDYdwJP3xYSrtf Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

On March 12, 2026, the Canadian Public Safety Minister tabled Bill C-22 in Parliament: the Lawful Access Act, 2026, which will create new police information demands and require "electronic service providers" to create new capabilities for the interception and retrieval of data for the police and national security authorities. Part 1 is much improved since it was first introduced as Part 14 of the "Strong Borders Act." Part 2, however, is deeply problematic as it has the potential to create a expansive surveillance infrastructure -- mostly in the shadows -- beyond what I think Canadians can tolerate. Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

An overview of privacy law that regulates private sector businesses in Canada (or those outside of the country who deal with personal information of Canadians): the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). 0:00 Beginning 0:57 Introduction 2:23 Why Canada has a mess of privacy laws 5:43 The Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the protection of personal information 6:40 How was the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) developed? 8:11 Key concepts - "commercial activity" 9:02 Key concepts - "personal information" 10:53 PIPEDA's baseline "reasonableness" requirement at s. 5(3) 12:16 Principle 1 - Accountability 16:09 Principle 2 - Identifying purposes 16:47 Principle 3 - Consent 20:13 Principle 4 - Limiting collection 20:58 Principle 5 - Limiting use, disclosure and retention 22:08 Principle 6 - Accuracy 22:47 Principle 7 - Safeguards 24:23 Principle 8 - Openness 25:49 Principle 9 - Individual access 26:58 Principle 10 - Challenging compliance 27:40 Enforcement under PIPEDA 31:22 Court applications under PIPEDA 34:16 Data breach notification 37:38 Real risk of significant harm (RROSH) analysis 40:25 Data breach record-keeping requirements 41:36 Wrap-up Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

Online fraud is a widespread, everyday risk that affects individuals, families, businesses, and public institutions. Drawing on real-world examples from my privacy law practice, I walk through how common scams work, from email account compromises and funds-transfer fraud to tech-support scams, ransomware, and “grandparent” scams (increasingly powered by AI). I also focus on practical, concrete steps that individuals can take to reduce their risk. There’s no such thing as perfect security, but understanding how scammers exploit urgency, trust, and information asymmetry can make a real difference. This episode is based on a presentation I was invited to give on Data Privacy Day for a client's employees. 0:00 Introduction 0:53 What is privacy and why does it matter? 6:13 Common frauds I'm seeing 12:19 So what can you do to protect yourself? 16:07 Wrap-up Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

In this episode, I examine a recent Report of Findings and Order issued by British Columbia’s Information and Privacy Commissioner concerning the City of Richmond’s “Public Safety Camera System” field test. The City installed high-resolution intersection cameras intended to provide footage to police to help identify criminal suspects. The Commissioner concluded that the City lacked lawful authority under BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to collect this personal information, failed to meet statutory notice requirements, and could not rely on planning or law-enforcement exceptions to justify the program. Because the City declined to follow the Commissioner’s recommendations, a binding order was issued requiring the City to stop collection, delete the footage, and dismantle the system. The OIPC-BC finding can be found here (PDF): https://www.oipc.bc.ca/documents/orders/3071 Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

This episode of PrivacyLawyer examines proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada in Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, which would expand the definition of “intimate image” to include certain AI-generated and deepfake images. The episode explains how the existing offence for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images was designed around real photographs and video recordings, and why that definition has struggled to keep pace with the rapid growth of synthetic and generative imagery. I walk through the current legal framework, including recent provincial civil legislation, and highlight the gap that exists for purely synthetic images that are realistic but not based on altered source photos. The discussion then focuses on the specific language proposed in Bill C-16, which would capture realistic visual representations that could reasonably be mistaken for actual recordings of an identifiable person, even where no real image ever existed. The episode also explores potential freedom of expression concerns under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly where AI-generated imagery is used for political satire or commentary, and considers whether the existing “public good” defence is sufficient. Finally, it reviews Bill C-16’s proposed new offence of threatening to distribute intimate images, explaining how it goes beyond traditional sextortion and why it represents a significant change to Canadian criminal law. Information on Bill C-16 can be found here: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/45-1/C-16 Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

A close look at the #PowerSchool #cybersecurity incident, perhaps the largest education-sector data breaches ever investigated in Canada, and the findings issued by the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Ontario and Alberta. PowerSchool is widely used by Canadian school boards to manage student information, including enrollment, grades, contact details, and medical alerts. In late 2024, a threat actor gained access to PowerSchool’s systems using compromised credentials belonging to a support contractor, allowing them to exfiltrate sensitive student and educator data affecting millions of individuals across multiple provinces. This video explains: ► What PowerSchool is and how school boards rely on it ► How the cyberattack occurred and what data was accessed ► What Ontario and Alberta privacy regulators investigated ► Where the regulators’ findings align — and where they differ What this case teaches about outsourcing, vendor oversight, and accountability under Canadian privacy law Both regulators concluded that school boards remained legally responsible for protecting personal information, even though PowerSchool operated the systems. The investigations highlight failures in cybersecurity safeguards, contract management, data retention practices, and breach preparedness — and underscore the heightened sensitivity of children’s personal information. Relevant links: ► Ontario finding: https://www.ipc.on.ca/en/resources/powerschool-report ► Alberta finding: https://oipc.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/FINAL-Investigation-Report-Regarding-PowerSchool-Breach-FOIP2025-IR-02.pdf ► Saskatchewan finding: https://oipc.sk.ca/assets/la-foip-investigation_003-2025-035-2025.pdf Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

A Canadian court has ordered French cloud provider OVH to hand over user data stored in France, the UK, and Australia—despite a French law that forbids it. The French government is objecting, but the Canadian government doesn't seem to care. What does this mean for digital sovereignty, cross-border investigations, and the limits of Canadian court jurisdiction? Lots. This episode unpacks a recent Ontario Court of Justice decision involving OVHcloud and a national security investigation, discussing the facts, the legal issues, the court’s reasoning, and why—in my view—the decision is deeply flawed. OVH is not accused of wrongdoing. It’s simply being ordered by a Canadian court to violate the law of the country where it is based—even though France offered to expedite a lawful country-to-country process. That should concern anyone who deals with cross-border data, law enforcement requests, or cloud infrastructure. The decision can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QVwO9lPmxuDSQsGd9fHH3QN_ToXs2LQ8/view?usp=drive_link Cases referred to in the episode: ► British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell, 2018 BCCA 5 https://canlii.ca/t/hplpj ► R v Love, 2022 ABCA 269 https://canlii.ca/t/jrflw ► Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Court of Quebec, 2025 QCCS 2094 https://canlii.ca/t/kcvtw Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

On November 19, government officials surprised many by apparently calling for the revival of #LawfulAccess measures from Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act. The presser was filled with incorrect and misleading information. Here's my take on it, with some corrections/clarifications of some pretty problematic statements. The government's press conference is here: https://youtu.be/GoQ2lL0rAJ4 My previous video on Part 14 of #BillC2: https://youtu.be/wOgo4TuoJec My previous video on Part 15 of #BillC2: https://youtu.be/E1LV2fcD9Bs Hat-tip to Michael Geist: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2025/11/reversing-the-reversal-government-puts-privacy-invasive-lawful-access-back-on-the-agenda/ Here's the decision in R. v. Owen, 2017 ONCJ 729 https://canlii.ca/t/hmx7s Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

Canadian privacy lawyer David Fraser breaks down the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s recent decision in RateMDs Inc. v. Bleuler (https://canlii.ca/t/kfhmc), a case about whether hosting online profiles, anonymous reviews, and ranking health professionals on RateMDs.com can result in a claim of invasion of privacy. David walks through the background, the arguments, why the Court found there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in publicly available professional information, and what this means for privacy rights, online review platforms, and professionals across Canada. Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

With no notice and largely out of the blue (following an opaque process), the Nova Scotia government just passed a revamped public sector privacy and access to information law, Bill 150. In this episode, I provide a high level overview of what's new, including the good, the bad and the meh. The new law can be found here: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/laws/astat/sns-2025-c-13/latest/sns-2025-c-13.html. Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

In this episode, Canadian privacy lawyer David Fraser breaks down the joint investigation by Canada’s federal and provincial privacy commissioners into TikTok — an interesting, complex and consequential privacy finding. The report tackles three major issues: whether TikTok’s data practices (especially with respect to young users who circumvent age-gating) serve a legitimate purpose, whether its consent process is valid and meaningful, and whether it meets transparency obligations under Quebec law. This episode explains the key findings, including TikTok’s commitments to introduce new age-verification systems, restrict ad targeting for youth, and overhaul its privacy communications for Canadian users. But this case also raises a bigger question: Have Canada’s privacy regulators set an impossible standard? In seeking to protect children’s privacy, the Commissioners may have required TikTok to collect more sensitive information — including facial scans or identity documents — from all users. David argues that these well-intentioned recommendations risk making privacy compliance more invasive, not less. Watch (or listen) for a deep dive into how this decision reshapes the balance between privacy, practicality, and policy. The federal/provincial privacy finding is here: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/investigations/investigations-into-businesses/2025/pipeda-2025-003/ Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

In this episode, David Fraser, PrivacyLawyer, unpacks the recent Ontario Divisional Court decision in Hospital for Sick Children v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. The case arose from ransomware attacks that temporarily encrypted servers at SickKids and the Halton Children’s Aid Society. No evidence suggested that hackers viewed, copied, or exfiltrated personal information—yet the Information and Privacy Commissioner found there had been an unauthorized “use” and “loss” of data, triggering notification obligations. The Court upheld those findings, deferring to the regulator’s broad interpretation. David explains why this matters for organizations across Ontario (and beyond), focusing on how common words like “use” and “loss” may not mean what you think when regulators are involved. He also contrasts Ontario’s strict approach with the federal private-sector law, PIPEDA, which only requires notification where there is a “real risk of significant harm.” The key takeaway: Ontario’s laws can demand notification even when no harm to individuals exists, a standard that may lead to over-notification and notice fatigue. The Divisional Court decision can be found here: https://canlii.ca/t/kffpm Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

The law — and the practical realities — of recording conversations in Canada. From AI wearables like the Bee that promise “always-on” memory assistance, to built-in recording and transcription on Zoom and Teams, to employees secretly recording meetings, the legal framework hasn’t really changed: one-party consent under the Criminal Code means you can record if you’re part of the conversation and your purposes are 100% personal. But that doesn’t always make it wise, and in workplaces or commercial settings, privacy laws and policies come into play. David explores where the law draws the line, why secret recordings are often seen as hostile, and how policies can help manage new tools like AI transcription and wearables. Whether it’s a patient recording therapy sessions, an employee hitting record in a meeting, or an organization using AI-enabled tools for accessibility, this video unpacks the legal rules, the privacy risks, and the best practices for managing them responsibly. Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► BlueSky https://bsky.app/profile/privacylawyer.ca ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

In August 2025, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner issued a revised finding against the University of Waterloo for a privacy breach involving “smart” vending machines that secretly used biometric face detection technology. Students discovered the issue when an error message revealed the machines were running FacialRecognition.App.exe. In this video, privacy lawyer David Fraser explains the Commissioner’s decision, why the University of Waterloo was found responsible under Ontario’s privacy law, and the lessons learned. The IPC finding can be found here: https://decisions.ipc.on.ca/ipc-cipvp/privacy/en/item/521985/index.do Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/... ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfr... Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

This video delves into the idea of warrant canaries—a transparency tool used by tech companies to signal when they’ve received secret government surveillance orders. With Canada’s new Strong Borders Act (Bill C-2) giving the Minister of Public Safety power to secretly compel electronic service providers to alter their systems for surveillance, companies operating in Canada may want to consider these. I explain what a warrant canary is, how it works, and trace its history from the early USA Patriot Act era and National Security Letters in the U.S. through real-world examples. My previous episode on Part 15 of the Strong Borders Act: https://youtu.be/E1LV2fcD9Bs Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

As other countries like the UK and Australia are joining conservative US states in implementing "age verification" under the rallying cry of "protecting the children", a Canadian Senator is determined to see it come to fruition for Canada, We had a very close call last year with this being passed, so you should know what's brewing in Parliament. Here's my video on the previous version of this bill, Bill S-210: https://youtu.be/UN8eP6LlWVY Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

The Charter Statement can be found here: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c2_2.html Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

Bill C-2, the so-called Strong Borders bill is a Trojan horse that contains a new law that allows the government to order backdoors in the communications infrastructure you use every day. The government can issue secret orders and service providers are prohibited by law from disclosing vulnerabilities that bad guys could be using to illicitly access data. This is the part of the "border bill" you haven't heard enough about. My last episode on Part 14 access to customer data: https://youtu.be/wOgo4TuoJec Read Bill C-2 yourself. Scroll down to Parts 14 and 15: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-2/first-reading Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

The newly elected Canadian government has introduced a bill in Parliament that addresses a whole bunch of concerns raised by the Trump government about the Canada-US border. But buried in the Bill are a whole bunch of measures that Canadian police have been clamoring for as the Supreme Court of Canada have swatted down efforts to get warrantless access to information about internet users. Here are my thoughts on Part 14 of the Bill, and my comments on the REALLY problematic Part 15 will follow. Past commentary on #lawfulaccess: https://youtu.be/tK-s6G0upco Here's a link to the status of Bill C-2, and a link to the most recent text: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-2 Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/privacylawyer.ca ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients. #LawfulAccess #surveillance #CALEA #Wiretapping

In Clearview AI Inc v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2025 ABKB 287, the Alberta Court of King's Bench determined that Alberta's privacy law violates the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has implications for ALL Canadian private sector privacy laws. The Alberta Court of Kings Bench Decision is here: https://canlii.ca/t/kc1r5 The Joint Privacy Commissioners' Finding is here: https://canlii.ca/t/jd55x #Privacy #privacylaw #ClearviewAI #canada #cdnpoli Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com/people/david-fraser ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser. Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

The recent case of R v Khairullah, 2025 ABCJ 14, found that the "know your customer" requirements for scrap metal dealers in Alberta violates Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court determined that requiring scrap metal dealers to collect and record personal information of sellers, and then provide it to a police-accessible database, makes the dealers agents of the state conducting unreasonable searches. You can read the case here: https://canlii.ca/t/k91m4 Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.

My previous related videos: ► Recording the police in public in Canada https://youtu.be/O6k64hDQn3U ► Do photography/videography bans in police stations and "public" buildings violate the Charter? https://youtu.be/nxv7RyCmcuk ► Taking photos and recording videos in public places for personal purposes https://youtu.be/KQJuWrunUVs Where you can find me ► Privacylawyer blog: https://blog.privacylawyer.ca ► My law firm: https://www.mcinnescooper.com ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/privacylawyer ► LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidtsfraser Disclaimer: This is intended for education and information only and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need advice for your particular situation, you should seek out qualified counsel. All views expressed are solely those of the creator and should not be attributed to his firm or any of its clients.