The Line in the Sand: Signal Threatens Canada Exit Over Massive Surveillance Law

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Signal has threatened to exit the Canadian market entirely rather than comply with proposed Bill C-22, which would compel the messaging app to compromise its encryption protocols. The proposed legislation, described as a, "lawful access" law, raises significant privacy concerns by potentially requiring mandatory metadata logging and engineered system vulnerabilities.

Read the full story at https://mobilesyrup.com/2026/05/14/signa...bill-c-22/

Your government wants to backdoor your communications Canada

[quintessentone]

Signal has threatened to exit the Canadian market entirely rather than comply with proposed Bill C-22, which would compel the messaging app to compromise its encryption protocols. The proposed legislation, described as a, "lawful access" law, raises significant privacy concerns by potentially requiring mandatory metadata logging and engineered system vulnerabilities.

Read the full story at https://mobilesyrup.com/2026/05/14/signa...bill-c-22/

Your government wants to backdoor your communications Canada

The spy watchdogs are on it.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics...mendments/

As within the UK:

"Legal and International ContextThese domestic changes occur alongside ongoing international scrutiny. The European Court of Human Rights previously ruled parts of the UK’s mass surveillance regime unlawful in 2019, citing inadequate safeguards for bulk interception.  More recently, cases against secret surveillance orders are scheduled to be heard in 2026, indicating continued legal tension between UK surveillance laws and human rights standards." (LLM

-----

More on Signal:

"Signal is not designed for child safety and lacks built-in parental controls, content moderation, or age verification mechanisms, making it unsuitable for younger children.  While the app provides strong end-to-end encryption that prevents third parties—including Signal itself—from accessing message content, this same privacy feature prevents parents from monitoring their child’s conversations or activity. 
Key risks for minors include:

• No Oversight: Parents cannot see who their child is communicating with or what they are discussing, which can facilitate risky behavior or exposure to predators. 
  
• Disappearing Messages: The ability to set messages to self-delete makes it impossible for parents to review past interactions for signs of bullying, grooming, or illegal activities. 
  
• Open Access: There is no age gate during sign-up (requiring only a phone number), allowing children under the recommended age of 13 to create accounts easily. 
  

Safety experts and parental control organizations generally recommend that Signal is only suitable for older teens (around age 15+) who can understand digital risks, and even then, it should be used alongside device-level parental controls and open family communication. " (LLM)

[MonkMode]

Signal has threatened to exit the Canadian market entirely rather than comply with proposed Bill C-22, which would compel the messaging app to compromise its encryption protocols. The proposed legislation, described as a, "lawful access" law, raises significant privacy concerns by potentially requiring mandatory metadata logging and engineered system vulnerabilities.

Read the full story at https://mobilesyrup.com/2026/05/14/signa...bill-c-22/

Your government wants to backdoor your communications Canada

I used to be proud to be from Canada, but this is another source of shame, along with their despicable euthanasia program.  

I hope they soon fail as a nation state.

[DBCowboy]

Signal has threatened to exit the Canadian market entirely rather than comply with proposed Bill C-22, which would compel the messaging app to compromise its encryption protocols. The proposed legislation, described as a, "lawful access" law, raises significant privacy concerns by potentially requiring mandatory metadata logging and engineered system vulnerabilities.

Read the full story at https://mobilesyrup.com/2026/05/14/signa...bill-c-22/

Your government wants to backdoor your communications Canada

So, um, police state?

[ReturnofBroccoli]

So, um, police state?

Their government is trying to be but the citizens have been able to shutdown all other 25 attempts at it so far as far as they know. Their intelligence community probably has their own prism version or maybe even shares ours their watchdog program however I think might be better than ours in the US. We confuddle it in a bunch of red tape and lack of communication where there's is a single unit of its citizens it seems instead of bureaucratic nonsense we have.

I doubt this will be their last attempt lol

I doubt signal is their ultimate goal with this though, but what is, or is it just "nice to have"? Lol

[ReturnofBroccoli]

I used to be proud to be from Canada, but this is another source of shame, along with their despicable euthanasia program.  

I hope they soon fail as a nation state.

Why is euthanasia despicable?

[quintessentone]

Signal is insignificant in the scheme of things, whereas the protection of children online and working with government for transparency is what many countries are doing, except of course the USA.

"Congress has repeatedly failed to pass comprehensive federal legislation, such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which passed the Senate with a 91-3 vote but died in the House of Representatives.  Despite broad public support and bipartisan agreement on the need for action, legislative gridlock persists due to congressional dysfunction, petty political beefs, and disagreements over how to balance child safety with free speech protections. 
Key reasons for the lack of federal mandates include:

• Free Speech and Censorship Concerns: Critics, including the ACLU and tech industry groups, argue that bills like KOSA’s "duty of care" provision could lead to overbroad censorship and the removal of content relevant to marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ youth resources.  House Speaker Mike Johnson and others have cited these constitutional risks as a primary reason for blocking floor votes.
  
• Disagreement on Regulatory Approach: There is no consensus on whether to impose a duty of care on platforms or to empower parental controls.  Democrats often support platform liability, while Republicans and some privacy advocates prefer voluntary age-verification signals or tools that allow parents to manage access without collecting sensitive government IDs.
  
• Tech Industry Lobbying: Major technology companies have engaged in aggressive lobbying to prevent strict regulations. While some firms like X and Microsoft support certain safety measures, others like Meta and Google have quietly opposed broad mandates, arguing that such regulations infringe on user privacy and business operations.
  
• State-Level Fragmentation: In the absence of federal law, individual states have attempted to pass their own regulations, such as California’s CAADCA and laws in Utah and Texas.  However, these have faced significant legal challenges, with federal courts blocking some measures as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment or as conflicts with federal preemption laws.
  

Consequently, while experts and parents argue that platforms are not self-regulating adequately, the U.S. federal government has not established a unified legal framework to force online services to protect children, leaving the issue to a patchwork of state laws and voluntary industry practices." (LLM)

---

That mindset seems to follow the same mindset as to the release of the Epstein Files and the non-action with the prosecution of co-conspirators that raped children.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Signal is insignificant in the scheme of things, whereas the protection of children online and working with government for transparency is what many countries are doing, except of course the USA.

"Congress has repeatedly failed to pass comprehensive federal legislation, such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which passed the Senate with a 91-3 vote but died in the House of Representatives.  Despite broad public support and bipartisan agreement on the need for action, legislative gridlock persists due to congressional dysfunction, petty political beefs, and disagreements over how to balance child safety with free speech protections. 
Key reasons for the lack of federal mandates include:

• Free Speech and Censorship Concerns: Critics, including the ACLU and tech industry groups, argue that bills like KOSA’s "duty of care" provision could lead to overbroad censorship and the removal of content relevant to marginalized groups, such as LGBTQ+ youth resources.  House Speaker Mike Johnson and others have cited these constitutional risks as a primary reason for blocking floor votes.
  
• Disagreement on Regulatory Approach: There is no consensus on whether to impose a duty of care on platforms or to empower parental controls.  Democrats often support platform liability, while Republicans and some privacy advocates prefer voluntary age-verification signals or tools that allow parents to manage access without collecting sensitive government IDs.
  
• Tech Industry Lobbying: Major technology companies have engaged in aggressive lobbying to prevent strict regulations. While some firms like X and Microsoft support certain safety measures, others like Meta and Google have quietly opposed broad mandates, arguing that such regulations infringe on user privacy and business operations.
  
• State-Level Fragmentation: In the absence of federal law, individual states have attempted to pass their own regulations, such as California’s CAADCA and laws in Utah and Texas.  However, these have faced significant legal challenges, with federal courts blocking some measures as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment or as conflicts with federal preemption laws.
  

Consequently, while experts and parents argue that platforms are not self-regulating adequately, the U.S. federal government has not established a unified legal framework to force online services to protect children, leaving the issue to a patchwork of state laws and voluntary industry practices." (LLM)

---

That mindset seems to follow the same mindset as to the release of the Epstein Files and the non-action with the prosecution of co-conspirators that raped children.

This was my thoughts as well, signal is just helping bring attention to it. It is not what they are after.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Wanted to also point out Canada's primary spy watchdog is the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) in case anyone is curious and wants to take a look at it

[andy06shake]

Why is euthanasia despicable?

The issue i have with "The right to die" is that doctors and hospital managers will abuse the system.

Look at Switzerland, where people are allowed to die who suffer from mental health concerns like depression.

Or even the poor lady who lost her child and chose to end her own life because she could not stand the grief.

Where im from, they will place a DNR on just about any old person who enters a hospital.

And not even bother to inform the poor sods.

So if you enter a hospital, and have something go wrong, and possibly no family to fight in your corner, it could very well be your end.  

It's a very slippery slope...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/grieving-m...5HjdYFt_2/