Stay informed
America Doesn’t Need to Invade Canada. It Has Our Data
Earlier this year, the French government announced it would stop using Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and any other United States–based video conferencing platforms by 2027 and begin using French-based Visio.
The decision came after Anton Carniaux, director of public and legal affairs for Microsoft France, testified before the French Senate that, under the US Cloud Act, Microsoft could be forced to hand over data from any country, regardless of where it is stored. Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are also racing to find alternatives to US-based technology.
Digital sovereignty, which is the protection and control of Canadian data, is quickly becoming the most prominent issue in this country. Amid ongoing strained relations with our southern neighbour, Canadians now face an uncertain digital future. Policy makers have the daunting task of figuring out how to keep our data safe while trying to move away from prominent US software. What’s at stake is Canada’s tech future and the safety of personal Canadian data. Protecting it may sound simple, but there are many different aspects to it.
“It’s also about not being able to control who gets access. Do we have infrastructure to manage our assets?” asks Teresa Scassa, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and the Canada research chair in information law and policy. “If we don’t have sovereignty, our access to data stored on offshore servers could be lost,” she says.
Digital sovereignty fits into three categories: infrastructure, data, and policy. Infrastructure relates to where data is stored, data covers how it’s used, and policy relates to whether a company’s values reflect Canadian values.
Scassa, who has been looking at digital sovereignty as part of her research on regulatory changes in technology, says one question is whether we’re sure we can collect and control the data we need to manage the resources we use. “For example, if we rely on US-based mapping software or satellite data from foreign sources, how would that impact us if we lost access? Would we feel confident that we have all the geospatial data we need in Canada?”
The issue of digital sovereignty isn’t new. When Toronto chose Google’s Sidewalk Labs for a “smart city” development project in 2017, there was a lot of excitement, but public backlash over data use soon followed. The deal would have given Google access to and ownership of all data collected in the project. Several advocacy groups criticized the tech giant’s plan to own Canadian data. Google eventually walked away from the project in 2020.
Jim Hinton, founder of Own Innovation, an intellectual property law firm, works with tech companies and has seen these issues play out for decades. As a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, he’s written about digital sovereignty issues, including the growing number of foreign companies owning artificial intelligence patents filed by Canadians. Digital sovereignty, he says, “has been an issue in our contractual agreements with the US for years. Americans get access to our data even if it’s located in Canada. For years, the terms of service for Microsoft have said they can shut off access anytime.”
Hinton says the tipping point began in 2010 with the rise of cloud computing, the mainstreaming of mobile phones, and the rapid development of artificial intelligence. Our data-driven economy has brought digital sovereignty to the forefront. “Now we have consolidation of data and access. All data flows from Canada to the US, then to the rest of the world. All the benefits flow to the US and trillion-dollar companies. We have to go back and fix our systems so we own our data and get the economic benefits.”
Another added complexity is how tech sovereignty affects Canada’s First Nations communities, as historically, the way data has been gathered, stored, and interpreted has misrepresented them. Information about their people and culture belongs to them all, which is why the First Nations Information Governance Centre was founded in 2010 to assert data sovereignty. The centre is the custodian of the Principles of OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession). For Metis communities, that information is not OCAP-based but Metis-citizenship-based and subject to Metis governance concepts.
“The Indigenous, Metis, and Inuit peoples all have different perspectives on data sovereignty, which is a core concept in digital sovereignty,” says Donald Johnston, partner at Aird & Berlis LLP. “They don’t have this individual, Eurocentric view of property rights.” American technology doesn’t capture these principles, which can cause long-term harm.
He says there have been situations in Canada where people come in to collect data, and because they collected it, they think they own it, and use it any way they want. “That’s not right. The Henrietta Lacks case is an analogous example of this. Scientists never got consent from the Lacks family for the harvesting of her DNA, and that situation still hasn’t been resolved in well over seventy years.”
Canada has long had sovereignty issues with the US, including over data protection and mass surveillance, but digital sovereignty has now reached a critical point, says Michael Karanicolas, an associate professor at Dalhousie’s Schulich School of Law.
Once our closest ally, the US, led by President Donald Trump, has adopted policies ranging from the ongoing trade wars to threats of annexation. This has left Canada even more vulnerable to the loss of digital sovereignty. “We assumed for the last century that we have a stable relationship with the United States,” he says. “We were worried about other countries, like Russia, China, or Iran. The relationship with the US was more focused on cultural protection since there is an unequal relationship there.”
Karanicolas says cultural sovereignty has always been an issue, prompting policies that promote and support Canadian film, TV, music, and media. The Online News Act and similar legislation were introduced to address cultural and tech sovereignty, with mixed results, including Meta’s decision to block Canadian news accounts on its platforms.
One possible solution is moving away from US technology. Several countries, including France, Switzerland, South Africa, and Ethiopia, are developing their own homegrown AI systems. Karanicolas says it’s not feasible for Canada to move away from US technology, but there should be diversification in what products are used. He suggests exploring open source software and technology owned by nonprofits. “There’s a lot of questions for us on digital sovereignty and not a lot of good answers,” he says.
“Changing our information ecosystem would be costly and take time. We can’t build a separate digital world from scratch with our own systems and architecture. Medium- to long-term, we need tech solutions, like diversification, but we’ll never be in a place where we’re only using Canadian products. We need more decentralized technology, and that’s controversial because it’s harder for law enforcement to access data.”
Not everyone agrees. Hinton says Canada should absolutely pursue creating its own tools to move away from US technology. “We have to build the new house before we move out of the old house.”
He says people think it’s complicated, but it’s not because central processing units (CPUs) become obsolete in five years, as do graphics processing units (GPUs), and building new software isn’t that hard. “Saying we can’t do it is a defeatist mentality. The reason why we’re not doing it is political will,” Hinton says.
“We saw that with TikTok, Google, and Amazon, how we pissed them off and we backed off. Canada is still cozy with technology companies. They want to use these social media platforms for their political gain. There’s no political will, and we have no political leverage against these companies.”
There have been discussions in the past few years about foreign interference and digital sovereignty. This year, the federal government introduced Bill C-25, the Strong and Free Elections Act, which would ban political parties from accepting cryptocurrency donations and prohibit the creation of deepfakes of candidates, except for satire or parody. Foreign interference laws would extend to leadership campaigns and all other non-election periods.
Scassa says the threat of foreign interference worries her. “We don’t know who might influence our elections or separatist movements. It’s real, and it’s significant.”
The biggest challenge is managing ties with the US. She says any solution will be difficult because of the strained relationship. While Canada is working to build new partnerships with allies, such as the European Union, that shift is a work in progress. “We’re still grieving in terms of our relationship with the US,” Scassa says.
“There’s a feeling of betrayal and loss, and we’re still feeling the effects economically. The countries are so intertwined, and now there’s fear of how technology can interfere with our democratic system. Any solution will be painful.”
Whatever approach is taken, there’s still a need for more public education. She says this is a long-standing issue that has to be addressed to move forward. “The bigger crisis is tech literacy or knowledge and understanding,” says Scassa. “It’s more than just learning how to use generative AI. We need to know about misinformation, disinformation, and fake sources. We need to have a conversation and start explaining what these issues are.”
This story originally appeared in the Canadian Bar Association’s magazine, National.
The post America Doesn’t Need to Invade Canada. It Has Our Data first appeared on The Walrus.
Unpublished Newswire
Comments
Be the first to comment