Privacylawyer - Canadian privacy and technology law with David Fraser

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released a new **Children's Privacy Code**, setting out expectations for how businesses should collect, use, and disclose the personal information of children and teenagers. In this episode, I explain the background to the Code, its key features, and what it means for businesses and young people. Most importantly, the Code recognizes that people under 18 aren't a homogeneous group: children have evolving capacities, and their growing maturity should be accompanied by greater autonomy over their personal information. Rather than simply excluding young people from online services, the Code emphasizes making those services safer and more privacy-protective.I also explore some legal tensions, including how the Commissioner's recognition of individual capacity fits with his arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Facebook privacy litigation, where he has advocated an objective standard for meaningful consent. And I'll explain why the Code's nuanced approach to children's rights offers an interesting contrast to proposals for outright social media bans for young people.Read the Privacy Commissioner's Children's Privacy Code: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-for-businesses/protection-of-children-for-businesses/childrens-privacy-code/children-code-final-report-2026/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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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.

Recently, the media is full of reporting about Flock Safety and their camera network. Could a system like this legally operate in Canada?In this episode, I explain how Canada's privacy would operate in the face of this model of crowdsourcing surveillance data from police departments, businesses, and private property owners.I look at the rules governing consent, reasonable purposes, retention of information about innocent motorists, and sharing information between police agencies. I also look at what Canadian privacy regulators have said about ALPR and sharing this sort of information about non-suspects. The bottom line? Just because your licence plate is visible in public doesn't mean your movements are fair game for mass surveillance.Contents:1:01 Flock Safety's business model and ALPR4:44 "Public information" is still "personal information"6:43 How the law has treated licence plate information8:41 Private businesses cannot crowdsource surveillance11:44 A "reasonable purpose" is required, even with consent14:22 What the British Columbia Privacy Commissioner has said about ALPR and information sharing18:45 What about the rest of Canada?21:28 A multi-user, multi-agency networked system is THE PROBLEM24:49 It doesn't matter whether there is one or more databases26:29 What does this mean for the use of ALPR in Canada?Additional links:BC Information and Privacy Commissioner — Investigation Report F12-04 (2012), Use of Automated Licence Plate Recognition Technology by the Victoria Police Department: https://www.oipc.bc.ca/documents/investigation-reports/1410Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner — Guidance on the Use of Automated Licence Plate Recognition Systems by Police Services (updated December 2024): https://www.ipc.on.ca/en/resources-and-decisions/guidance-use-automated-licence-plate-recognition-systems-police-servicesPast episode on photography in public places: https://youtu.be/KQJuWrunUVs?si=m0nNZmON9cVa7ae5#PrivacyLaw #FlockSafety #ALPR #CanadianLaw 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.

Smart glasses can take photos, record video and capture audio while looking almost like ordinary eyewear. What does Canadian law say about using them in public?In this episode, I look at how existing rules on photography, video recording, recording conversations, voyeurism, privacy claims, private property and freedom of expression apply to devices like Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses.The technology may be new, but most of the legal principles are not. The bigger challenge may be how smart glasses are changing our social expectations about when we are — and are not — being recorded.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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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 scams are getting smarter, more convincing, and harder to spot.I break down some of the most common scams I see in practice — including fake tech-support calls, business email compromise, grandparent scams, fraudulent payment requests, ransomware, crypto scams, and AI-assisted impersonation.I explain the warning signs that show up again and again: urgency, secrecy, unexpected payment requests, spoofed identities, and pressure to act before you have time to think.I also share practical steps you can take to protect yourself, your family, and your organization — from multi-factor authentication and stronger password practices to independently verifying suspicious requests through a trusted channel. Scammers keep changing their tactics. Learning to recognize the patterns is one of the best ways to stay ahead of them.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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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-34, the Safe Social Media Act, would prevent people under 16 from having accounts on designated social media services unless the service obtains an exemption from the Digital Safety Commission. In this episode, I explain why I think that restriction violates the freedom of expression guarantee in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — and why it is unlikely to survive the section 1 Oakes test.Protecting young people from genuine social-media harms is undoubtedly an important objective. But constitutional rights require governments to pursue those objectives proportionately. Bill C-34’s account ban treats all young people alike and restricts access to an important forum for political, artistic, educational and social expression even though less restrictive alternatives — including safer design, parental controls and targeted restrictions on harmful features — are available.I also look at the French Constitutional Council’s August 2026 decision striking down France’s similar social-media restriction for minors. While French constitutional law does not determine the Canadian question, the Council’s reasoning — that a broad prohibition was not sufficiently tailored to the actual risks posed by particular services or the circumstances of particular young people — closely resembles the analysis a Canadian court could undertake under the Charter’s minimal-impairment requirement.Cases discussed:► R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 — the foundation of the section 1 proportionality test. https://canlii.ca/t/1ftv6► Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 — freedom of expression and Quebec’s prohibition on advertising directed at children. https://canlii.ca/t/1ft6g► RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 — freedom of expression, broad prohibitions and minimal impairment. https://canlii.ca/t/1frgz► Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 — including the Court’s consideration of whether a blanket prohibition was broader than necessary to achieve the government’s protective objective. https://canlii.ca/t/gg5z4► France Constitutional Council Decision No. 2026-911 DC of August 14, 2026 - Finding that France's social media ban for young people was unconstitutional https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2026/2026911DC.htm (in French)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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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.

Parliament returns from its summer break on September 21, 2026, with three major pieces of legislation on the agenda that could reshape Canadian privacy and digital policy.In this episode, I look ahead to the fall sitting and provide an overview of Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act; Bill C-36, the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act; and Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, 2026.Bill C-34 would create a new online-safety regime governing social media platforms, AI chatbots and other online services, including controversial age restrictions and age-assurance requirements. Bill C-36 would replace the privacy provisions of PIPEDA with an entirely new private-sector privacy framework, stronger enforcement powers and a new regulatory structure. And Bill C-22, which has already passed the House of Commons and is moving to the Senate, would expand lawful-access powers and create new requirements for electronic service providers to facilitate government access to data.I discuss why these three bills matter, the major privacy, cybersecurity and freedom-of-expression issues they raise, and what to watch as Parliament gets back to work this fall.Here are previous episodes about these Bills: Canada's proposed new privacy law: Bill C-36, the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act https://youtu.be/2BaatCD74pIOnline Harms is Back: About Bill C-34 The Safe Social Media Act https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E08XVXwojMwThe Deeply Problematic Part 2 of Bill C-22: The Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh51IJSAwp0Lawful Access is Back: All about Bill C-22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZFbTYttuN8&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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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.

Canada's federal private-sector privacy law may be about to undergo its biggest transformation in more than 25 years.Bill C-36 would repeal the privacy provisions of PIPEDA and replace them with the new Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act (PPCDA). The bill introduces mandatory privacy management programs, enhanced consent requirements, new rights to dispose of personal information, privacy impact assessments for cross-border data transfers, significant administrative monetary penalties, and an entirely new enforcement model that replaces the current role of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.This episode explains the key provisions of Bill C-36, compares it with the earlier Bills C-11 and C-27, and discusses what these proposed changes could mean for Canadian businesses, privacy professionals, and individuals.Follow the progress of the Bill here: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/45-1/C-36Read Professor Michael Geist's commentary here: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/06/canadas-digital-super-regulator-bill-c-36-pushes-out-the-privacy-commissioner-and-hands-private-sector-privacy-to-an-overloaded-commission/Read Professor Teresa Scassa's commentary here: https://teresascassa.substack.com/p/canadas-new-privacy-reform-bill-bill#Privacy #PIPEDA #BillC36 #CanadianPrivacyLaw #DataProtection #PrivacyLaw #Canada #PPCDA #DigitalPrivacy #LegalUpdate #privacylawyer 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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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 breakdown of Canada's newly introduced Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act. Reintroduced as an update to the controversial and stalled Bill C-63 (the Online Harms Act), Bill C-34 expands the government's regulatory scope to include not only traditional social media platforms but also AI-driven chatbots and other interactive online services. This overview covers the bill’s major changes—including new under-16 account restrictions, mandatory age-verification for all, explicit labeling of synthetic AI content, and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada. I refer to Michael Geist's blog post, which you can find here: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/06/the-law-to-be-named-later-bill-c-34-punts-50-key-decisions-to-cabinet-and-a-digital-safety-commission-that-does-not-yet-exist/ Follow the progress of this bill and read the latest version here: https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/45-1/C-34 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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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 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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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/davidtsfraserDisclaimer: 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.