Technologists for Democracy logo

Tag: ontario

  • Press Release: OPEN LETTER TO THE PROVINCE ON WAYMO’S ARRIVAL IN TORONTO

    **** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ****

    Block Waymo – Press ReleaseDownload

    Open letter:

    TfD-Waymo-Open-Letter-1Download

  • Statement on MetCap’s Inadequate Privacy Policy

    October 7, 2026

    Why can’t a 22,000-unit landlord get privacy right?

    Technologists for Democracy (TfD) stands with the residents of 105 Isabella Street in Toronto and with Javier Ruiz-Soler. His complaints have led the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to investigate and find that MetCap “is inappropriately collecting personal information from inside the tenants’ units.” The Commissioner also found that:

    • MetCap failed to provide Ruiz-Soler with access to his own personal information, 
    • MetCap failed to provide contact information for their privacy officer, and
    • MetCap’s public documents did not explain how video footage is managed.

    Ruiz-Soler says his concerns went unaddressed for years.

    Report of Findings (PIPEDA-049999) Issued: June 8, 2026 1. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner received a complaint under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA or the Act) from an individual alleging that MetCap Living Management Inc. (MetCap) inappropriately collected personal information without consent. Specifically, he claims that the organization inappropriately collected personal information from inside the tenants' units via the newly installed hallway security cameras. 2. The complainant also alleges that the organization did not provide the tenants notice of the installation of the security cameras and that information regarding how the footage is used and stored is not included in the organization's public facing documents in contravention of the Openness provision of PIPEDA. 3. Finally, the complainant claims that MetCap denied him access to his personal information, did not reply to his privacy inquiries nor provide the privacy officer's contact information upon request in contravention of both the Access and Challenging Compliance provisions of the Act. 4. Following our investigation of the matters raised in the complaint, we have concluded the following: a. MetCap is inappropriately collecting personal information from inside the tenants' units via the hallway security cameras: well-founded and not resolved; b. MetCap did not reply to the complainants access request and therefore denied him access to his personal information: well founded; c. MetCap has failed to provide the privacy officer's contact information upon request and respond to the complaint's privacy inquiries: well founded; and d. Information regarding the management of the personal information collected via the CCTV system is not included in the organization's public facing documents: well founded and conditionally resolved.
    Excerpt of the report by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

    MetCap’s VP of Operations, Michael Guyette, said the company “acknowledges the seriousness of the concerns raised and has taken steps to address them.” But if this is the case, after tenants raised their concerns with the building manager, why did it take a complaint to the federal regulator for MetCap to act?

    The same issues have shown up at another MetCap building. In March 2026, one of TfD’s volunteers asked for their CCTV policy. MetCap replied that per their own policy, “camera footage is not allowed to be released to the tenants.” We then wrote to MetCap’s privacy office and received a draft policy that was “not yet finalized.” We raised concerns about operating cameras without a finalized policy, and with the draft itself. We did not receive any relevant answers. In our last correspondence with MetCap, they indicated that the building was no longer being managed by MetCap.

    The policy now on MetCap’s website is essentially that same draft, and none of our points have been addressed. It provides no details on retention period, states nothing about audio, and does not specify where footage is stored. It also states that requested footage showing anyone other than the requesting resident “will not be provided.” The OPC guidance says otherwise: “Individuals have the right to access images relating to them. When disclosing recordings to individuals who appear in them, the organization must ensure that identifying information about any other individuals on the recording is not revealed. This can be done through technologies that mask identity.”

    Tenants have a right to know what is being recorded, why it is being recorded, how long it is kept, where cameras are, and who sees it. A company of this size can afford to pay someone whose job is to know the basics of Canadian privacy law.

  • Tell Doug Ford: Say NO to Waymo

    April 2026 — Now

    Waymo is an autonomous vehicle company founded by Google and owned by its parent company, Alphabet Inc.

    They are lobbying politicians to deploy their vehicles across Ontario.

    We believe this is a problem.

    Sign our petition below!

    1. Digital sovereignty and privacy is at stake. As US law enforcement and tech companies share data, we are concerned that this could put Canadians’ data at risk.
    2. Ontarians’ jobs risk being outsourced to software engineers in California, data labellers and support staff in countries where they are paid low wages. We are concerned that local Uber, Lyft and taxi drivers risk losing their jobs as Waymo outcompetes them.
    3. Public transit could lose riders as people with more discretionary income will spend it on Waymo and ridesharing apps in general, instead of taking the subway.
    4. Congestion may worsen as Waymo adds more cars to the roads, with reports indicating that Waymo cars drive significant distances without any passenger.
    5. Ontarians are not getting their voices heard! From reports of zooming past school buses in Austin, Texas, to shutdown of services during blackouts and heavy rainfall, Ontarians deserve a fair assessment of driverless taxis.

    Let’s move people, not profits!

    Check out our open letter below and sign our petition to
    Say No to Waymo!

    TfD – Surveillance Taxis – Open Letter – Second Release

    ← Back

    Thank you for signing!

    Petition to Say NO to Waymo

    By signing, you consent to your information being sent to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and related parties. Also see our privacy policy.

    I am signing as an …

  • Speed Cameras are an Effective Technology for Public Safety

    See PDF version here.

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Media contact: Khasir Hean – 226 927-2677 – khasir.hean@gmail.com

    September 25, 2025 (Toronto, ON) – Technologists for Democracy is a grassroots, volunteer-run advocacy organization. We are disappointed by Premier Ford’s decision to ban automated speed enforcement (ASE) cameras. The Hospital for Sick Children and Toronto Metropolitan University have found that ASE cameras in Toronto reduce the proportion of people speeding by 45%, and reduced motor vehicle speeds by 7km/h overall.1

    Reducing motor vehicle speeds is proven to improve safety. When the City of Toronto reduced speed limits from 40km/h to 30km/h, collisions decreased by 28%, and major and minor injuries decreased by 67%.2 Additionally, 73% of Ontarians support ASE cameras in targeted zones.3

    These facts point to the importance and popular support for enforcing speed limits and reducing motor vehicle speeds. We call on the Province of Ontario to commit to public safety by ensuring that drivers obey posted speed limits through ASE cameras to reduce collisions and injuries.

    Instead of spending taxpayer dollars on the removal of existing ASE camera infrastructure, we call on Premier Ford to cancel the upcoming ban on ASE cameras. The Province has not provided details of the provincial fund for spending taxpayer dollars on the removal of ASE camera infrastructure, nor on replacing ACE cameras with safe street infrastructure such as roundabouts or bike lanes. Pedestrian and bike-friendly infrastructure reduce incidences of collisions and speeding in areas where these interventions are applied.

    Separately, there are a number of privacy risks related to ASE cameras. We must ensure that privacy safeguards are built into ASE systems and policies so that data sharing and security best practices are followed, to maintain public trust. For instance, audio, visual and related data should be utilized only for speed monitoring, and not for other law enforcement purposes such as surveillance.  Similarly, license plate data collection and management should be constrained to speed monitoring and enforcement only, and should not be combined with other datasets for a different purpose. ASE cameras should not become multipurpose tools used for purposes other than for monitoring speed.

    We believe that a significant portion of the opposition to ASE cameras is caused by sub-par implementation. We also call on municipalities to improve implementation by focusing on the driver experience – for example, reducing the delay between incidence of speeding and ticket issuance, putting up signage and publishing open data on ASE camera locations, or providing clear feedback to drivers where speeding occurred. The public has a right to know where ASE cameras are, following transparency and open government principles.

    We at Technologists for Democracy believe that ASE cameras are an effective technology for maintaining public safety. In summary:

    • We call on the Province to take a stand for public safety by allowing for the implementation of ASE cameras.
    • We request that the data policies of ASE systems be designed with safeguards to use personal data minimally and protect public privacy.
    • We call on municipalities to improve ASE systems to focus on the driver experience and improve trust.
    1. The City of Toronto Automated Speed Enforcement Program Evaluation. March 28, 2023. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/96cc-Automated-Speed-Enforcement-Program-Evaluation.pdf ↩︎
    2. Effect of reducing the posted speed limit to 30 km per hour on pedestrian motor vehicle collisions in Toronto, Canada – a quasi experimental, pre-post study. Fridman et al. February 10, 2020. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-8139-5 ↩︎
    3. CAA survey suggests 73% of Ontarians support speed cameras in targeted zones, even as cams cut down. Gabriela Silva Ponte. July 23, 2025. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/survey-finds-ontarianpurposes,s-support-speed-cameras-1.7592325 ↩︎