Having governments spy on citizens is a great way to reduce crime! Consider how many more criminals would have been caught over the past century if only police had been able to listen in on citizens’ telephone conversations. How many violent terrorist plots, mass shootings, and child kidnappings would have been prevented in recent decades if only the government could have monitored all of our emails, texts, and cellphones?
So why do Canadians—and citizens of other democracies around the world—cherish privacy in the first place? If a man has nothing to hide, why would he care if the authorities read his mail, texts, and emails? Why object to police keeping track of who a woman associates with, and when and where she meets up with her friends? Why does Section 8 of the Charter expressly set out the right of Canadians to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?
One reason is because privacy is essential for freedom. Even for the completely innocent person who has nothing to hide, he or she still values the freedom to do and say things, and meet with people, without the state silently observing their every move. People prefer privacy in their backyards, for example, over a nosy neighbour. We value privacy in and of itself. If we’re not OK with one of our neighbours (or even a close friend) knowing everything about us, why would we be OK with police or other agents of the state to obtain this information?
Privacy is valuable because freedom is valuable. We value privacy not because we have something to hide, but because we value the freedom to be ourselves—to explore ideas, ask questions, and form opinions. As Edward Snowden once said, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like arguing that you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” He further stated: “If we don’t have privacy, what we’re losing is the ability to make mistakes, we’re losing the ability to be ourselves. Privacy is the fountainhead of all other rights.”
Apart from the intrinsic value of privacy, a practical reason for opposing government spying is that human nature is a mixture of good and evil. Governments are made up of people. Like people, governments can do great things, but they can also inflict massive harm, suffering, and damage. Having a monopoly on power, governments can use it for good or evil. It is worth remembering that more citizens were murdered by their own governments during the 20th century than the combined number of soldiers killed worldwide on the battlefields. The likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot made use of the machinery of the state to kill tens of millions of people. State surveillance of citizens was an integral part of that machinery.
Repressive regimes spy on citizens to ensure obedience and compliance, to eliminate dissent, and to perpetuate a particular ideology or regime. Citizens who are spied on by the authorities are not truly free, even if they might superficially enjoy some freedom of speech, association, movement, religion and so on. Privacy is the shield of a free people.
Therefore, in free societies, the police must go to court to obtain a warrant whenever police want to engage in ongoing surveillance of a person’s emails, phone calls, texts and internet usage. The warrant can allow police to enter a home unannounced and without the homeowner’s permission, to (potentially) find drugs being manufacturing, or child pornography on a computer. The warrant can authorize police to read the emails and texts, and monitor the website searches, of a small number of pedophiles, pimps, drug dealers, and terrorist suspects.
Requiring police to obtain a warrant makes it possible to violate the privacy and property rights of a small number of criminals and suspected criminals, which is necessary for fighting crime. At the same time, in a free country, the state must fully respect the privacy and property of the overwhelming majority of citizens who pose no danger to their fellow citizens. For centuries, Canada’s warrant system has struck the right balance between protecting citizens’ privacy while also empowering police to catch criminals.
Nevertheless, there will always be advocates for the surveillance state as the solution to preventing serious crimes. The tragic shootings in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., in February have galvanized some to argue that Canadians’ private AI interactions should be placed under state surveillance and control, for the sake of public safety.
Eight months before the shooting, Jesse Van Rootselaar had used OpenAI’s ChatGPT to explore ideas and scenarios involving gun violence. OpenAI banned Van Rootselaar from using its platform, but did not contact the police because OpenAI saw no imminent danger or credible risk of serious physical harm. Even the police, who had previously removed firearms from the shooter’s home in 2024, returned them less than one month before the shooting, seeing no imminent threat. Considering the eight-month time gap between the shooting and Van Rootselaar’s use of ChatGPT, and considering that it was the police (not OpenAI) who provided the shooter with firearms, would a state-controlled (or heavily regulated) AI sector have made a difference in this case?
Rather than giving the government new surveillance powers, we should consider the cultural and societal problems which facilitate and encourage mass shootings: family breakdown, fatherless homes, widespread loneliness, the absence of authentic community, declining mental health, and loss of respect for human life. Violating the privacy and freedom of Canadians through state surveillance of AI does not address any of these root causes.
While the nationalization or regulation of AI is framed in terms of public safety, such measures would normalize routine government access to private communications, even without judicial authorization, depending on the specific implementation. State surveillance threatens privacy, erodes freedom of expression, and introduces political bias into content moderation. If the government can monitor the AI queries of Canadians, this would normalize the terrible idea that the state is entitled to access sensitive personal information without judicial oversight.
If Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, is passed into law, this will likely turn OpenAI (and other AI companies) into “electronic service providers” given its broad definition of the term, which would give the federal government and law enforcement sweeping powers to access users’ information. Bill C-22 lowers the legal threshold for lawful access to subscriber information from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”—making it easier for police to obtain sensitive subscriber information.
Bill C-22 empowers the government to require electronic service providers to retain metadata (IP addresses, time, frequency, duration, etc.) for up to one year for possible disclosure to law enforcement, subject to a warrant. Professor Michael Geist posits that mandatory metadata retention is one of the most privacy-invasive tools available, creating backdoor surveillance capabilities extending beyond the government’s stated anti-crime goals.
Expanded state access to AI interactions, by way of Bill C-22 and other legislation, would normalize widespread surveillance, erode anonymity, chill intellectual exploration, and lead to ongoing self-censorship. If the government can see how Canadians interact with AI, this will undermine innovation, democratic debate, and artistic pursuit, to the detriment of the free society.
Neither technological progress nor public safety should ever require surrendering fundamental freedoms, of which privacy is the cornerstone.
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B., is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca).
