It can be a 2 part test: believe there's a crime AND suspect the provider has the info. But they want to lower it ALL down.
As 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.
If anyone gets their mitts on a copy of Safe Social Media Act bill (aka "An Act to enact the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts"), I'd be grateful to receive it.
In #SECU questioning of government officials about the scope of 'service providers' and asserted limited expectations of privacy in Bill C-22 Lawful Access, each question should begin with "Are you married?"
Catching up on #SECU on Bill C-22 Lawful Access. If you are a gov't witness in the "think of the children" chorus and don't know about the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, you should not be there.
Everyone testifying at #SECU on Bill C-22 Lawful Access either has no imagination or is being clever. "We can't get the data with a current General Production Order because we don't have reasonable grounds to believe the provider has the data."
"Safe Social Media Act"? Do you think it'll be limited to social media? I bet no. www.canada.ca/en/canadian-...
Catching up on #SECU testimony. The Sup't from the RCMP actually said that "confirmation of service demands" take place all the time, but the advantage of Bill C-22 Lawful Access is that cops will actually document these demands in their files.
www.canada.ca
The Government of Canada will share information on new legislation to make social media services and AI chatbots safer for children
RCMP witness at #SECU on Bill C-22 Lawful Access has no idea -- literally zero idea -- how often the warrantless confirmation of service demand would be used. Zero. Nil. Nada. No clue. (To be clear, this demand is pretty benign but being clueless is a problem.)
The test has two parts: reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed and reasonable grounds to believe the provider has the data. They want to lower the grounds to "suspect", which has a HUGE impact on it overall.
