KOPYA NG SALIN 🔗
# MP3-derived timestamped transcript
[00:00] It's been a big debate for a long time, right?
[00:02] And we know that from various stories we've covered,
[00:06] when you force technology platforms, especially,
[00:10] to enable sort of special access for the good guys,
[00:14] it's always a question of how long it'll be
[00:17] before the bad guys find a way to access it.
[00:19] This week on Shared Security,
[00:21] Canada is debating a new law called Bill C-22
[00:25] and at its core, it raises a question
[00:27] we've been arguing about for decades.
[00:30] Should law enforcement be able to access
[00:32] encrypted communications when they have legal authorization?
[00:37] Well, supporters see this as a way
[00:39] to make sure criminals can't hide behind technology.
[00:42] But privacy and security advocates warn
[00:44] that if companies are forced to build special access
[00:48] into encrypted systems, that same access
[00:51] could eventually be abused by hackers, criminals,
[00:54] or foreign governments.
[00:55] So the real issue isn't just privacy versus law enforcement.
[01:00] It's whether you can create a backdoor
[01:02] into secure technology that only the good guys can use.
[01:07] And joining me to discuss this topic
[01:09] is a real actual Canadian, Mr. Scott Wright.
[01:14] Hey, folks.
[01:15] Yeah, I don't have my ID here.
[01:16] Hello.
[01:17] No passport to show.
[01:18] Yes, let's see your ID.
[01:19] Please show your passport to everyone
[01:21] watching this podcast, Scott,
[01:23] to make sure that you are a real Canadian.
[01:26] I'd love to as a Canadian, but sorry.
[01:29] Yeah, sorry, not gonna do that.
[01:31] So yeah, so we're talking about
[01:33] the big old encryption backdoor debate
[01:36] that keeps coming up.
[01:37] Like we keep seeing governments that feel
[01:41] that it's necessary that we always have to have
[01:44] some way of accessing encrypted whatever,
[01:49] whatever it is, and here we are again.
[01:52] Yeah, I mean, I get the point.
[01:53] I mean, if I was in law enforcement,
[01:55] I'd want to be expanding my capability
[01:58] as much as possible as well.
[02:00] But as we've talked about in for over a decade,
[02:03] almost two decades.
[02:04] Yeah.
[02:05] You know, the idea of what's called in Canada,
[02:08] they call it lawful access.
[02:09] I'm not sure if that's what they call it in the US
[02:10] or not, but it's basically giving law enforcement
[02:15] as much access as they need and no more.
[02:19] I think that's maybe a way to put it.
[02:20] And it's been a big debate for a long time, right?
[02:23] And we know that from various stories we've covered
[02:27] when you force technology platforms, especially
[02:30] to enable sort of special access for the good guys,
[02:36] it's always a question of how long it'll be
[02:38] before the bad guys find a way to access it.
[02:41] Yeah, and I think this is interesting
[02:43] and we'll link in the show notes,
[02:45] there was a
Load full transcript
really good article that Mozilla,
[02:47] who is the company that makes the Firefox
[02:50] web browser, they had a post about this bill in particular
[02:55] and kind of the unique aspects of it.
[02:59] And I think that's what we wanna talk about today
[03:01] on this episode because it is a little bit unique
[03:05] because in the United States,
[03:07] it's been more of just give us a backdoor.
[03:12] And we talked about in previous episodes
[03:14] about how way back in the day,
[03:18] the FBI was telling Apple
[03:21] because of a terrorism related case,
[03:24] you need to give us a backdoor into Apple iOS
[03:27] so that we can access the communication
[03:32] from a person that was suspected
[03:35] of creating a terrorism type of event.
[03:38] And that is a slippery slope
[03:41] because if you do it once for an investigation,
[03:46] which obviously has legitimate purposes,
[03:48] the argument is hackers and others
[03:51] will abuse this backdoor as well.
[03:54] And also law enforcement could abuse it as well.
[03:57] And that's never happening, right?
[04:00] We see this with flock right now in the United States.
[04:03] There are a lot of police
[04:04] that are abusing this special power.
[04:08] And so that is the, I think the core of the argument is,
[04:12] can you trust the government
[04:13] if there is a backdoor that's created
[04:16] into these different systems and technology?
[04:18] I don't know if we mentioned the name,
[04:20] but it's C-22, Bill C-22 in Canada
[04:23] that's, it's actually gone through our parliament,
[04:25] the House of Commons,
[04:26] and I think it's in the Senate for debate right now.
[04:32] Latest breaking news.
[04:34] So it's not a law.
[04:35] Interesting thing about Canadian laws like this,
[04:37] I've covered privacy laws in the past decade or so.
[04:40] There was a new law called PIPEDA,
[04:43] which is protection of information,
[04:45] paper and electronic documents act or something like that.
[04:48] Anyway, they can pass the law,
[04:51] but there's no way to enforce it
[04:53] unless they have what's called regulations.
[04:55] And so when they put the implementation together,
[04:57] they call that a regulation
[04:59] and that's what everybody has to comply with.
[05:00] And so even if they pass it as a law,
[05:03] nobody's gonna get sort of arrested
[05:07] because there's no basis for it, right?
[05:09] So they still have a lot to do
[05:11] before it really becomes something
[05:13] that people have to follow.
[05:14] But all that to say,
[05:16] having looked at all the ways
[05:17] it's been approached before by other governments,
[05:19] I gotta say, this is a really Canadian way to look at it
[05:22] because we're trying to meet the spirit
[05:25] of what law enforcement needs,
[05:27] but also respect Canadians' privacy.
[05:30] And so what's interesting here is they're saying,
[05:34] we know that most platforms and products
[05:37] have a bunch of information about their clients,
[05:40] naturally that they use for optimization
[05:43] with their own sort of abuse monitoring
[05:45] and stuff like that.
[05:47] And so first of all,
[05:49] make sure you retain that stuff for us
[05:52] that we can have legal access to.
[05:54] And in fact, they're not even saying
[05:55] what specific types of data formats
[05:59] or channels or media,
[06:01] they're just saying anything that looks like something
[06:04] that we might have already had a mechanism for,
[06:07] we'd like to have access to
[06:09] if you've got the data, right?
[06:11] And they're saying,
[06:12] don't create a special back door just for us.
[06:15] But like you said,
[06:16] if you're gonna create something to monitor people
[06:18] so that you can be helpful to law enforcement,
[06:21] don't put any vulnerabilities in it.
[06:23] So it's interesting to look at the spirit
[06:26] of how this was written
[06:26] and the levels of legislation it has to go through
[06:30] so far look good,
[06:31] but it all comes down to the implementation, right?
[06:34] Yeah, that's right.
[06:35] And I find it interesting,
[06:37] I think the phrase they specifically said is,
[06:40] companies should not be required to introduce
[06:42] a systemic vulnerability in the solution.
[06:46] So essentially they're, like you said, Scott,
[06:48] they want to allow companies to build in these,
[06:52] and they don't call it a back door,
[06:54] but that's essentially what it is.
[06:56] But it has to be secure
[06:58] so that there are no vulnerabilities
[07:00] and that only the government can use it essentially.
[07:03] And they say it in a very Canadian way.
[07:06] You know, it's almost like they're asking,
[07:09] please, can you please do this kindly?
[07:11] If it's not too much trouble, can you do this?
[07:13] Yeah, yeah, exactly.
[07:15] Because everybody in Canada is very nice and polite.
[07:19] So let's say most of the US citizens,
[07:21] there's a few that are not so happy
[07:23] with how we treat US, but yeah.
[07:26] Yeah, well, I mean, there's all that stuff,
[07:28] tariffs and everything,
[07:29] but yeah, this is the kind of a,
[07:31] I find it interesting that how
[07:34] the Canadian government kind of approaches these issues
[07:37] with kid gloves on essentially, you know.
[07:41] It's very nice, don't worry.
[07:45] Mobile apps are just part of everyday life now.
[07:48] Banking, healthcare, shopping, entertainment, you name it.
[07:51] And with that comes a lot of trust
[07:54] because users are putting their personal data
[07:56] directly into your app.
[07:58] But here's the reality, mobile apps are a growing target.
[08:01] A recent survey found that 72% of organizations
[08:04] experienced a mobile app security incident last year
[08:08] and 92% say threats are only increasing.
[08:12] And the way attackers are going after apps
[08:14] is pretty sophisticated.
[08:15] They're reverse engineering them, modifying them
[08:18]
and redistributing fake versions through phishing campaigns,
[08:22] side loading and even third party app stores.
[08:25] So from a user's perspective,
[08:27] everything can look completely legitimate.
[08:30] That's why taking a proactive approach
[08:31] to mobile app security really matters.
[08:34] You wanna stay ahead of these threats,
[08:35] not react after the damage is done.
[08:38] This is where Guard Square comes in.
[08:40] They provide advanced protection
[08:41] for both Android and iOS apps
[08:44] along with automated security testing
[08:46] to catch vulnerabilities early
[08:48] and real-time threat monitoring
[08:50] so you can actually see what's happening out there.
[08:53] If your mobile app is critical to your business
[08:55] and it probably is,
[08:57] this is something worth paying attention to.
[08:59] You can learn more at guardsquare.com.
[09:02] That's guardsquare.com.
[09:06] Well, I think it's just a reflection
[09:09] of how the government is trying to still,
[09:13] to some extent, meet the wishes of the population.
[09:17] So, I mean, this just continues that debate, I think.
[09:20] And there's the Canadian approach of, you know,
[09:23] kid gloves and let's do it nicely.
[09:25] And then in other countries, it's not so nice, right?
[09:28] Like, I know there are other countries
[09:31] like China, for example.
[09:33] I mean, this is just mandated.
[09:35] I mean, they can go to any company in China
[09:38] and get any kind of information that they want
[09:40] from their users or whatever.
[09:42] And so it's more of a authoritarian play
[09:45] in a lot of countries.
[09:47] And here in Canada and the United States,
[09:49] we debate things.
[09:51] We put things through a Congress or a parliament
[09:55] to argue the privacy and security issues.
[09:59] But I'm always interested to see
[10:01] what ends up happening at the end of the day.
[10:04] Yeah, based on who pays the most for the...
[10:06] Exactly.
[10:06] Like, what does this mean if this does pass?
[10:09] And like you said, right now it's currently in the Senate.
[10:11] This is not a law yet, but it very well could be.
[10:14] And that's something that we will keep
[10:16] our audience updated on.
[10:18] Because this would be, I think,
[10:19] if this does pass in Canada,
[10:21] I think this would be the first law of its type,
[10:24] at least in North America.
[10:26] Yeah.
[10:27] And I would hope that they do continue,
[10:29] as I would expect them to consult with
[10:32] cyber security professionals in Canada.
[10:34] I know I've seen hearings where they've had
[10:36] some of my buddies testifying in committees
[10:41] about what's good or bad.
[10:42] And they tend to be listened to.
[10:45] I don't think there's as much financial leverage
[10:48] on the politicians and the processes
[10:51] that might be in other countries.
[10:53] But in the debates that we've seen before,
[10:56] the crux of the debate is how much legitimate improvement
[11:01] in the law enforcement process do you expect
[11:04] from having direct access to data
[11:07] that you wouldn't otherwise, right?
[11:08] And I think it was Bruce Schneier and others
[11:11] who've argued there really haven't been
[11:14] any significant arrests when they've had the data, right?
[11:19] Yeah.
[11:20] Any more than they would have without getting that stuff.
[11:23] So it's interesting to hear those debates.
[11:26] That is an interesting argument
[11:28] because I've often read and I've seen this myself
[11:32] where just good old-fashioned police work
[11:35] can actually convict somebody and you're right, Scott,
[11:40] like oftentimes you don't even need access.
[11:43] It's pretty hard to hide your digital footprint, right?
[11:46] Yeah.
[11:47] These days, even with VPNs and jump servers and whatever.
[11:51] Right, and there's other ways that law enforcement
[11:53] can subpoena and get access to data
[11:57] that they have already had through existing laws
[12:00] and through existing warrant processes
[12:03] that like I know in the United States
[12:05] and sure this is the same in Canada,
[12:06] but the big tech companies like Google and Meta,
[12:10] they get subpoenas all the time
[12:12] for data and information that is not encrypted.
[12:16] It's just part of an investigation
[12:19] of what was somebody doing with this account
[12:22] on Facebook as an example, right?
[12:25] And so that's been in place for decades, right?
[12:28] Since the companies even existed and since Facebook.
[12:31] Yeah, they've got it down to an art now or a science.
[12:32] Yeah, they do.
[12:34] Right, and it doesn't require a backdoor bypassing
[12:38] an encryption system, right?
[12:41] Of where data is actually encrypted.
[12:42] That's because they collect everything
[12:43] and retain it anyway.
[12:45] Correct, exactly.
[12:46] So it gets really complicated
[12:48] because we talk about like what is the type of data
[12:51] that is being requested
[12:52] and this is really about encryption at the end of the day.
[12:56] It's about data that law enforcement cannot access
[12:58] because of a technology
[13:00] or because of encryption being implemented.
[13:03] And so that is really kind of the crux.
[13:04] I think it's a smart way to word it
[13:06] because you know that every platform has metadata
[13:09] about its customers.
[13:11] And so there's no point in overlooking that,
[13:15] as you said, for good old fashioned law enforcement
[13:18] or investigative processes, you do need that stuff.
[13:23] But I think the Canadian method is just not to overstep on
[13:27] and create more problems and are needed.
[13:30] Yeah, and ask nicely.
[13:32] And ask nicely.
[13:33] That's right, that's right.
[13:34] So we'd love to hear from you.
[13:36] What are your thoughts on this topic?
[13:38] Do you think that law enforcement
[13:39] and do you think governments should have access
[13:42] or lawful access to encrypted data
[13:45] and should there be backdoors built in
[13:46] or these very nice backdoors
[13:49] that don't create any security vulnerabilities?
[13:52] We would love to hear from you.
[13:54] So leave a comment on our YouTube channel
[13:56] or you can send us an email, feedback at sharedsecurity.net.
[14:00] Lots of ways to get ahold of us,
[14:01] but we'd love to hear from you
[14:03] and we'll talk about maybe some of the comments
[14:05] on the next episode.
[14:07] Too bad Kevin wasn't here today.
[14:09] Yeah, Kevin's been super, super busy, a lot of traveling,
[14:12] but we're gonna get him back on hopefully next week
[14:14] because yeah, he has also been very opinionated
[14:17] about this particular topic as well, like many of us.
[14:21] All right, well, I think that's all we have time for today.
[14:24] I wanna thank everyone for listening
[14:26] and until next time, stay safe, stay secure,
[14:30] and stay private.
[14:30] Thank you for listening or watching.
[14:32] If you liked this episode, hit subscribe,
[14:35] share it with your friends and colleagues
[14:37] or jump into our community at sharedsecurity.net
[14:40] slash supporter to keep the conversation going.
[14:43] Thanks again and we'll see you next week
[14:45] for another episode of Shared Security.