David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 13/09/2026This will be up on my YouTube channel this evening ... 131
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 09/09/2026How you can tell you're in the accounting department's supply room and not the IT department's ... 2164
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 07/09/2026I'm no artist. I have more vision than skill. I spent hours in photoshop trying to turn this picture into something that looked like a sketch. It kind of worked. A couple of minutes with Gemini, and I had the image that I wanted. (I took the original photo with the end result in mind.) 221
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 02/09/2026Alberta court recognizes the tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” in the province, but tweaks it slightly compared to the Ontario version. See BD v Germain, 2026 ABKB 590 canlii.ca/t/kmsj5 196
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 27/08/2026If you see a posting on social media by a police agency about a person who has been reported as missing, please amplify it. Also consider that postings that include the person's name that remain after they are found can have a long-term impact on them. #MissingPersons 082
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 14/08/2026Until about a month ago, I knew exactly what was referred-to as a "lettuce slip". 150
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 10/08/2026This is holding down the fort here. (My YT video from last month is still rendering.) 120
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 17/06/2026After too many hours of watching spirit-killing clause-by-clause on Bill C-22 Lawful Access, a bright light! I had to find out more about the gorgeous shawl/jacket worn by MP Debellefeuille. I hope nobody on my Christmas list is reading this. It's from her riding: boutiquelemuso.com/products/jet... 380
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 17/06/2026Wow. I didn't think things would sink this low. This is definitely Vic Toews level rhetoric. globalnews.ca/news/1190824... 15428
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 16/06/2026Hmm. Government witness at #SECU says Bill C-22, which creates a new production order for subscriber information, isn't about production orders or even "speak to them". 074
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 16/06/2026The problem with takedowns of content based on mere suspicion under Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act. More here: youtu.be/E08XVXwojMw 165
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 16/06/2026Canada's proposed social media ban for youth in #BillC34, the "Safe Social Media Act". More info here: youtu.be/E08XVXwojMw 2108
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 15/06/2026Tune into CPAC at 3:45 ET / 4:45 AT for the introduction of the new federal privacy law: www.cpac.ca/en 132
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 13/06/2026It looks like a whole new Canadian federal privacy law will be tabled in the House of Commons on Monday. Very interesting that it appears to have a completely different structure than the last attempt at privacy law reform. www.ourcommons.ca/documentview... 2138
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 10/06/2026Coming up on CPAC at 5:00 ET / 6:00 AT. "Headline Politics: Federal Government Introduces Safe Social Media Act" www.cpac.ca/en 122
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 09/06/2026As we anticipate a social media ban to be proposed by the Canadian government tomorrow, it's worth noting in the Charter of Rights: "everyone" includes young people and "media of communication" includes social media. 18443
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 09/06/2026Here it comes: Bill C-34 Digital Safety Act (aka Online Harms): www.ourcommons.ca/documentview... 253
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 04/06/2026BS/Spin: "Government cannot allow foreign corporations to dictate public safety in Canada." Reality: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the adoption of the Charter. Police lobbyists can't dictate the rights of Canadians in Canada. 110
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 01/06/2026Tune in tomorrow as the #SECU committee has agreed to another hearing on Bill C-22 Lawful Access. Some great organizations to hear from. www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentView... 1169
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 28/05/2026Meanwhile, at the moment when the Minister should be most familiar with the details of his Bill, he flubs up something pretty basic and important. 160
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 26/05/2026Note the use of the word "intended". I don't care what the drafters say they "intend" with the Bill. I care about what it does. 040
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 26/05/2026Canada's signals intelligence agency, CSE, joins Public Safety in misleading spin about Bill C-22 Lawful Access. Part 2 of the bill does not "mandate" backdoors, but it authorizes the Minister to secretly order backdoors. www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Comm... 1109
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 26/05/2026Chill your preferred beverage and get the popcorn ready: Four hours of witness testimony on Bill C-22 Lawful Access is about to start at 3:30 ET. Click on "Watch on ParlVU" to watch live or on demand. www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentView... 040
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 25/05/2026The Information Technology Industry Council notes in their submission to the SECU Committee two very problematic provisions in Bill C-22 Lawful Access, which haven't gotten much attention in light of the Bill's other huge problems. www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Comm... 0105
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 25/05/2026The Barreau du Québec's brief to the SECU Committee on Bill C-22 Lawful Access is an interesting read. It focuses exclusively on Part 1, and has this banger quote: www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Comm... 02018
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 21/05/2026It is absolutely clear that under Bill C-22 (Lawful Access), the government intends to turn every phone into a tracking device. "Federal officials on the defensive as momentum grows against lawful access bill" www.cbc.ca/news/politic... 22926
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 17/05/2026The gov't says "there will be no backdoors" under C-22 (lawful access), but they're defining what is a backdoor. By their definition, a big door that says "cops only" and is part of a company's mandatory security controls is not a backdoor. www.canada.ca/en/services/... 275
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 16/05/2026Please, Public Safety Minister Anandasangaree, point to the safeguards in your "lawful access" Bill C-22. Everyone who knows what they're talking about have observed they're inadequate or non-existent. www.cbc.ca/news/politic... 177
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 11/05/2026This statement by Public Safety is incorrect and a bit weasely. There is nothing in the bill that would prevent what's in the first paragraph. The bill grants the government NEW CAPABILITIES to access private devices and communications. 1146
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 06/05/2026The gov't says that Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is "encryption neutral." Canadians aren't "encryption neutral." The UK gov't used the same powers to secretly order Apple to remove iCloud security for everyone. We need guardrails. 2125
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 01/05/2026Interesting. One of the examples of the need for lawful access legislation would not be possible under C-22, as the changes made since C-2 limit confirmation of service demands to telcos. Hotels excluded. 020
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 01/05/2026Interesting: Ontario court refuses a general warrant that would require suspect's biometrics to unlock digital devices. Re Application for Biometrics Scanning as part of a General Warrant, 2026 ONCJ 234 canlii.ca/t/kkl41 182
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 19/04/2026Maybe don't literally stand by. It's still uploading .... 100
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 19/04/2026Since it's zooming to committee, I've got a full overview of Part 2 coming up. Stand by ... 100
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 18/04/2026The Canadian government wants you to focus on Part 1 of the Lawful Access Act (Bill C-22), but this is what Part 2 will enable. Secret ministerial orders are the groundwork for turnkey totalitarianism. 22516
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 02/04/2026My 8 year old nephew picked this up from the $2 bin at a local record shop last week and boy was he amused when he got home .... 010
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 23/03/2026For the hyperpartisans filling my notifications about Bill C-22, lawful access: y'all should know that three of the past four attempts to do this were from conservative governments. blog.privacylawyer.ca/2025/06/past... 0148
David TS Fraser @privacylawyer.ca · 22/03/2026In the coming days, Canada's opposition parties are going to have to decide whether they support Bill C-22, the #LawfulAccess Act. They--and all Canadians--need to consider whether this massive surveillance infrastructure is what we want. Or will tolerate. 11715
![The Test for Intrusion upon Seclusion
[42] In order for a plaintiff to establish the tort of Intrusion upon Seclusion they must prove the following on a balance of probabilities:
a. The defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless;
b. The defendant must have invaded, without lawful jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s private affairs, or concerns; and
c. A reasonable person, in the position of the plaintiff, would regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation, and anguish.
[43] I recognize that the third element of this test is slightly different from the test for Intrusion upon Seclusion in Ontario. In Ontario, the third element of the test is simply that a “reasonable person would regard the invasion...”, rather than a “reasonable person, in the position of the plaintiff, would regard the invasion...” However, like the House of Lords in Campbell v MGN Ltd, [2004] UKHL 22, and this Court in Shillington, I prefer the reasonable person to be considered is the person affected by the publication, rather than the viewer of the publication.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bdoom6ykbtxnafeysttw4nly/bafkreicv5i4z4wmwemulkthdkqvueuafrzllk72q55r4dx7w6l6egxqpsi)
![[16] I disagree with this assertion, as it involves a difference without a distinction. Properly considered, fingerprint or thumbprint locks and facial recognition locks on digital devices are all shortcuts of the same thing: the deliberate input of a password that otherwise exists only in the password holder’s mind. Whether being required to utter the password itself to authorities, to input manually the password on the device, or to provide their finger, thumb or face to the police to assist in unlocking the device, these are all part and parcel of the same testimonial compulsion. They all compel the Target to participate in their own incrimination by providing the information held only by them. This, as the jurisprudence to date has made clear, is unconstitutional.
[17] The proposed biometric scanning sought in the Order is tantamount to an Order compelling the Target to provide the password from their own mouth, and in this respect is unlawful. As such, I must deny this request.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bdoom6ykbtxnafeysttw4nly/bafkreid4rqg6m4xcutxpgizkwq27n7cbx2rjuc5fsvk3bk6cxqcnozewg4)
