Freedoms Are at Stake

By Dale Jodoin Columnist                                               I wish this were a conspiracy story. Unfortunately, the laws themselves are real, and your freedoms may be at stake. Something is happening in Canada, Great Britain and Australia that deserves a serious conversation around the coffee table. All three governments are bringing in similar rules about the internet. They say these laws are needed to protect children from harmful material online. Protecting children is important. Nobody is arguing otherwise. But I believe Canadians deserve to know what else these laws could mean for them. Australia has already passed laws restricting social media accounts for children under 16. Britain has its Online Safety Act. Canada has proposed its own Safe Social Media Act. Three countries moving in much the same direction. Is that a coincidence? Not entirely. International online safety regulators openly work together and share ideas about how the internet should be controlled. But here is where I become concerned. When governments pass laws, they do not always settle every detail in Parliament. Some decisions are left to regulations, government agencies and the courts. That means the rules people live under can change without Parliament voting on every detail. Think about your own life. You wake up, pour your coffee and open your phone. You check the news, read what your friends are saying and perhaps leave a comment about something your government has done. Nothing unusual. Millions of people do it every morning. Now imagine being asked to prove your age before entering certain websites. Depending on the system, that could involve identification documents, facial scans or other personal information. Who collects that information? Where does it go? How long is it kept? And who can demand access to it? These are not foolish questions. Canada has also proposed separate legislation dealing with the retention of certain telecommunications information. Britain has its own data retention powers. Australia already requires some telecommunications records to be kept for two years. The laws differ, but the privacy questions are similar. And this brings us to something even more troubling. Information collected for one purpose can become valuable for another. Imagine a future government wanting to identify people who attend protests, criticize its policies or support an unpopular cause. Could information gathered through online systems help it do that? That is a risk worth examining, not proof that these new laws already authorize such political spying. History teaches us that government powers deserve limits, regardless of which political party holds office. Then there is the news. Britain has considered giving recognized news organizations greater visibility online. Supporters call it a way to help people find reliable information. But who decides what makes a news organization reliable? What happens to the small newspaper that questions the government? Or the independent journalist who asks uncomfortable questions? A free press must be able to challenge those in power. We are also told that freedom of information laws keep governments accountable. Yet anyone trying to obtain public records can face delays, exemptions and pages of missing information. That hardly builds public trust. I am not claiming these three governments have secretly agreed to spy on everyone. The evidence does not establish that. What we do know is that they are creating similar systems with new powers over online services. And once those powers exist, future governments may seek to expand them. So before we accept another law in the name of protecting children, we should demand clear answers about adult privacy, independent journalism and government accountability. Because freedom is not something we should have to prove we deserve. If these laws are really about protecting children, why shouldn't governments have to prove that our freedoms will be protected too?