Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Tech Style & Beauty Kitchen & Dining Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentChristine Van Geyn: Privacy isn't a crime, but Bill C-22 acts like it isPoliticians reveal meme-level ignorance of constitutional guarantee of privacy in CanadaLast updated 1 day ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.Photo by UnsplashParliament’s public safety committee is currently studying a mass surveillance bill developed by the Carney government. Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is being pilloried by civil liberties experts and the tech industry alike for the potential risk it poses to our privacy online. But legislation like this is only possible because of the profound lack of understanding so many of our elected leaders have about why privacy matters.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an Accountor“For those who have privacy concerns, my message would be: don’t commit a crime.”This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThat was Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown’s response to C-22 when he recently testified at the public safety committee. The statement could come straight out of an Orwell novel. It echoes the mantra of surveillance tyrants so chilling that it is used in New York City subway advertising for Mullvad VPN: “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” All of this captures an ignorance of why privacy has constitutional protection. Privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing; it is about preserving human dignity, autonomy, and the freedom to live without constant observation.There’s a name for the psychological phenomenon that people will change their behaviour if they know they are being watched: the Hawthorne Effect.Between 1920 and 1932, researchers set out to test factors affecting workplace productivity at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works factory in Illinois. The researchers were surprised to see that productivity increased whenever changes were made, even if those changes made working conditions worse. They realized that the workers were not responding to the changes; they were responding to the fact that they knew they were being watched. Observation changes how we act.Forty years later, French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault reached a related and even more incisive conclusion in Discipline and Punish: that once surveillance becomes pervasive, the mere possibility of observation will alter behaviour. People begin to act as though they are always being watched. Foucault’s insight was that surveillance changes behaviour even when nobody is actively watching. Once people believe they may be observed, they begin to police themselves. They avoid risks, suppress unpopular opinions, and conform to expectations. This research was based on an eighteenth-century prison design known as the Panopticon, developed by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Foucault theorized that with the internalized fear of constant surveillance, each of us, and society as a whole, becomes a panopticon.Bill C-22 would take us closer to that nightmare. The bill makes vague promises of increased safety at the cost of our dignity and autonomy. The law would require companies that provide electronic services to build systems that allow law enforcement and CSIS easy access to private data. It could force telecoms to log who you talk to and where your devices were located for up to one year, and could permit the Minister of Public Safety to order companies to break encryption, creating “back doors” into secure communications.The industry response to Bill C-22 has been unified and aggressive. Companies such as Apple, Google, Meta, Signal, and several VPN providers have warned about this legislation. At the committee Apple’s representative said “We don’t know how to deploy encryption that lets only the good guys in without letting the bad guys break in,” and Signal warned that they would leave Canada.VPNs (virtual private networks) are a valuable privacy tool that hides your IP address online, encrypts traffic, and makes tracking your online activity harder. It is important for journalists, lawyers and activists handling sensitive information, and it is commonly used by average Canadians who simply want greater privacy either at home, when on public WiFi or when travelling. ExpressVPN has said that their no-logs architecture and encryption are “non-negotiable.” The search engine DuckDuckGo said it would withdraw its VPN from Canada as well if C-22 passes. And Proton VPN has said there is “no universe” in which it would compromise its no-logs architecture, and they would challenge the bill through every available legal avenue.The government should take these warnings seriously. The mistaken belief that Meta’s response to the Trudeau government’s Online News Act was merely a negotiating tactic is the reason Canadians no longer have news on Facebook or Instagram. It would be a serious blow to privacy in Canada if the VPN industry abandoned Canada because the government requires tracking.The government has resisted calls for change. The Globe and Mail has reported that the Minister of Public Safety may be open to changes on encryption, but not on metadata. The government’s position is that metadata is not content and is not sensitive information. While it is true that metadata does not include information about the content of messages, it could include information about which phone numbers have been in touch with each other and includes data that allows someone’s location to be pinpointed. Who you contact, when you contact them, where your phone has been, what services you use, and what websites you visit, can reveal intimate details about a person’s life even without reading the contents of communications.As the civil liberties organization the Canadian Constitution Foundation told the committee, a free society depends on people’s willingness to explore unpopular ideas, challenge authority, join controversial causes and experiment with different ways of living. If people increasingly act as though they are being watched, they will change their behaviour. This is why privacy is not merely an individual right, but a condition necessary for democratic freedom. A society of pervasive surveillance may reduce the exercise of rights long before the state punishes anyone. Our leaders need to understand that privacy is not the enemy of a free society. Rather, it is one of the conditions that makes freedom possible.National Post Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.