Technologists for Democracy logo

Author: Adam

  • Statement from Ontario Privacy Commissioner on Waymo

    May 2026

    Technologists for Democracy reached (TfD) out to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), an arms-length agency that works to uphold privacy rights of everyday Ontarians in the public sector.

    We asked the IPC about the risks of allowing Waymo on our streets, and how municipal and provincial governments should ensure that privacy rights are protected. This is their response:

    The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) oversees compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). These laws establish the rules for how public institutions in Ontario such as municipalities, local, regional, or provincial governments collect, use, and disclose personal information and how they must keep this information secure. When private organizations collect personal information during commercial activities, they must comply with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which is overseen by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

    Automated vehicles are often equipped with sensors and, depending on their configuration, can collect significant amounts of sensitive personal information.

    While our office recognizes that technological innovation can offer significant benefits to communities, these shouldn’t come at the cost of Ontarians’ privacy and access to information rights. This includes the public’s right to privacy in public spaces and to know what information is being collected about them.

    Even if public sector organizations are not directly involved in the handling of personal information collected by automated vehicles, they should establish and enforce strong access, privacy, and security controls when assessing or procuring these technologies. While public institutions can outsource services, they can’t outsource accountability for protecting personal information and privacy. Our office also recommends that provincial and municipal governments engage in meaningful public consultation before approving the use of automated vehicles in public spaces to support transparency and build public trust.The IPC has resources related to smart city technologies that may be relevant to the privacy issues associated with automated vehicles. For more information, refer to our fact sheet Smart Cities and Your Privacy Rights and our joint submission with Canada’s privacy regulators about smart city infrastructure.

  • Statement on Bill C-4 and Digital Privacy

    Bill C-4, a federal bill named “An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure”, silently included a measure weakening privacy laws. The “[other]  measure” would explicitly legislate that provincial and territorial privacy laws not apply to federal political parties and third-party services they employ. The bill provides for each party to create and publish its own privacy policy. It does not include a sufficiently robust federal regime to oversee this new change. This self-serving provision is dangerous as it undermines democratic processes, punishes grassroots movements that lack the digital firepower to rival their counterparts, and erodes privacy regulation in Canada.

    This is an unwelcome setback in privacy policy. It provides a pathway for political campaign services to further merge with political parties. As each party is now responsible for its privacy policy, applications will have increased leverage with sensitive private information from party databases and vice versa. With this growing market, this unholy alliance between surveillance and politics will grow and pose a great threat to democracy. Campaign expenditures can be used to delegate privacy policies to third-party applications who can skirt enforcement as they hide behind their association with political parties. When local communities push back against privacy violations, they will no longer have their own local laws as a recourse.

    Technologists for Democracy strongly condemns this provision, along with how it was silently added into a bill that has nothing to do with privacy. Democratic integrity is at stake and no one has asked for this.