Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
We don't have to speculate; there's already a real world example of this in action, right here in the good ol' USA. Perhaps you've heard of the Salt Typhoon hack? It involved exploitation of a backdoor in place under mandate of U.S. federal law regarding (CALEA). Salt Typhoon Hack Shows There's No Security Backdoor That's Only For The "Good Guys" BY JOE MULLIN AND CINDY COHNOCTOBER 9, 2024

There's a major change in the air multinationally in terms of government intrusion in the name of various forms of 'security' and going after 'bad actors.' The credibility involved varies but the 'big picture' is ominous.

1.) The U.S. ban against Huawei and ZTE. Turns out that's not just a U.S. concern:

Huawei and ZTE bans in Europe will trigger response, China warns China's government brands the EU's proposed new Cybersecurity Act as protectionism, inviting charges of hypocrisy. Picture of Iain Morris Iain Morris,International Editor,Light Reading May 6, 2026

2.) The big TikTok ban and reversal drama.

3.) CALEA in the U.S., which I'm told has been expanded upon over time. This mindset isn't so new; way back in during the Clinton administration, there was a system called Carnivore that triggered concerns. And that was before A.I. could potentially better 'understand' (metaphorically) e-mail content, etc.; imagine what they could do with it now! Wikipedia page on Carnivore (Software). Wikipedia page on Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.

4.) Edward Snowden's revelations.

5.) The DJI Drone ban. That's being fought - article from yesterday in PC Magazine. DJI Urges Customers to Speak Up, Tell the FCC to Stop the Drone Ban The FCC is accepting public comments on its ban until Monday, May 11, and DJI is trying to rally more affected consumers to the cause.

6.) Move to control 3-D Printers. From PC Magazine May 5 - The Government Doesn’t Just Want to Ban Ghost Guns. It Wants to Control Your 3D Printer New laws are targeting not just 3D-printed weapons, but the digital files, platforms, and machines that create them, raising questions about innovation and who decides what can be made. As a longtime member of the 3D-printing community, defined by its openness, I'm concerned.

7.) Hugely, the recent U.S. ban on foreign-made routers in the name of 'national security,' which has a range of concerns about making the problem worse instead of better, paranoid exaggeration of risk, running up costs, reducing competition and rate of innovation, implausibility of moving manufacture to the U.S., risk of corruption in exemption-granting process, etc. Discussed at length with multiple resources on MacRumors forum at US bans foreign routers - reason enough for a new Airport?

8.) Per the article by MacRumors (above), in February 2025 "the British government demanded that Apple give it blanket access to all encrypted user content uploaded to the cloud. Apple refused, and instead pulled its Advanced Data Protection iCloud feature from the United Kingdom."

9.) Now we've got the Canada thing going.

10.) Age verification and efforts to obstruct VPN use and threaten vendors with liability risk. This is multi-national, but Utah recently put in a law here in the U.S.


Lawmakers Want to Ban VPNs—And They Have No Idea What They're Doing BY RINDALA ALAJAJINOVEMBER 13, 2025

Australia just made a major move and you can bet other governments are watching:


This type of thing has far-reaching efforts; I've seen a YouTube presentation on the Linux community response to mandatory age verification at the OS level, largely defiant, and that can potentially exclude OS access.

11.) How many data breaches need to be reported in the news, and how many e-mail notifications do you or I need to get that our info. was involved in a data breach and was found on the 'dark web' to realize there is no absolute data security?

12.) Some European nations are turning to Linux rather than Microsoft Windows due to concerns about security - due to a foreign nation (United States!)-based company not under their thumb is a concern for at least some I believe. Google regarding France and Germany.

I used to disdain China's exclusion of some U.S.-based social media platforms to maintain ideological control over the Chinese people, and China has been criticized as a 'surveillance state.' Well, right here in the 'Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave,' we're heading into 'pot calling the kettle black' territory.

National security, protecting kids from porn, enhancing the ability of law enforcement to go after alleged law breakers, there are multiple rationales but the common theme is greater control by government over platforms and intrusion into our privacy.

My points from this:

1.) Look at the Canada effort in the context of the big picture - multi-national intrusive control efforts to pursue government agendas (some laudable (e.g.: protect kids), some maybe not).

2.) A regulation passed in one place (e.g.: requiring age verification) can have far-reaching effects elsewhere.

3.) Threatening platforms with the liability burden can extort compliance in ways that restrict us all.

4.) Backdoors create vulnerabilities and there's a history of exploitation.

5.) This regulatory effort isn't new but is gaining momentum fast and nations are watching each other, and I imagine seeing how much pushback these efforts get.

6.) The go-to workaround, VPNs, is under attack.
 
I don’t have Facebook. And was just reading an article about how the economy just shed another 16,000 jobs last month. Shesh 6.9% unemployment rate. Your wizard Carney is doing a heck of a job lol
what from post media I presume. ha ha ha. Sure you don't. btw. mmmmmmhmmmmmm. Facebook Con talking points are what you are quoting...then hinding it as an "article" you read.
 
"Apple now finds itself in a similar standoff across the Atlantic."

They must be using Apple Maps for this. Canada is north of you, Apple. Up. Not across the Atlantic.
I had the same thought. A better way to write it would have been "Apple now finds itself in a similar standoff back on their own side of the Atlantic."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devyn89
Actually that would be the CONservatives up here. Not Liberals. Timbit trump lost twice up here already....but they keep him around. Which is fine by me. He's never going to be PM. He's a career politican and was only a paperboy before that. Has no idea of real world living. Always lived on the backs of seperatists, the party and Loony conspiracy theories.
YAY CARNEY!
100% agree. Keep Timbit Trump as the Con's face, and they'll never sit again in the PM's office.
 
Context is important — the article was talking about the same issue having previously argued in the UK, so when Canada put forth the law, Apple then found itself “...in a similar standoff across the Atlantic.” The context was bring the conversation back to North America.

Ah, so it was just written really poorly.
Like if I said I had an argument with someone in Toronto, and then another argument with someone 3 cities away, except the person 3 cities away was my next door neighbour.
 
Canada becoming a bigger dumpster fire month to month it seems. Governments assuming tech literacy is never good for anyone. C-22 hopefully dies. I don’t want to lose advanced data protection for my native apps. Law enforcement agencies have managed just fine all these years, and they can continue to do so without masses of people losing their right to privacy and above all, personal security in a tech dependent age.
 
Has anyone actually read the bill? While I won’t claim there aren’t problems, people seem to have missed this text:

systemic vulnerability means a vulnerability in the electronic protections of an electronic service that creates a substantial risk that secure information could be accessed by a person who does not have any right or authority to do so.‍ (vulnérabilité systémique)

Systemic vulnerability
(5) The electronic service provider is not required to comply with a provision of the order, with respect to an electronic service, if compliance with that provision would require the provider to introduce a systemic vulnerability related to that service or prevent the provider from rectifying such a vulnerability.

A back door into encryption is, by definition, a systemic vulnerability. So the bill appears to have created an exemption that would apply to companies like Apple who offer ADP/encryption.
 
LOL...context is important to the article. He's right about that statement. With the way it's written it is implying that Canada is across the Atlantic. It gave me a chuckle when I read it. We know what the writer likely meant but it's poorly written.

It doesn’t imply it, it can be taken that way — that’s not the same. Implying requires intent. There was no intent to make you think Canada is across the Atlantic from the US, it can just be taken that way because it was worded improperly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: numberfive
One more thing:

Then bill states that if the police or government agency requests data from a service provider (like your text messages) that service provider has a right to refuse the demand for data.

This triggers an automatic referral to a judge who must then decide if the agency requesting the data has a valid request. If the request is valid the judge issues a court order. If not the request is denied.

The one problem with this is if an employee of a company wasn’t aware of this rule and simply handed over data to anyone who requests it without knowing they can deny the request. I doubt any major provider would fall for this, but smaller companies might not be aware of the rule.

From the bill:

Application for review​


(8) The telecommunications service provider may, within five business days after the day on which they receive the demand, apply in writing, to a judge in the judicial district where the demand was received, to revoke or vary the demand.

Notice to apply for review​


(9) The telecommunications service provider may make an application under subsection (8) only if, before the confirmation is required to be provided, they give notice to the peace officer or public officer who made the demand of the telecommunications service provider’s intention to make the application.

No obligation to provide confirmation​


(10) The telecommunications service provider is not required to provide the confirmation until a final decision is made with respect to the application.

Revocation or variation of demand​


(11) The judge in the judicial district where the demand was received may revoke or vary the demand if satisfied that
  • (a) it is unreasonable in the circumstances to require the applicant to provid
 
Last edited:
Has anyone actually read the bill? While I won’t claim there aren’t problems, people seem to have missed this text:





A back door into encryption is, by definition, a systemic vulnerability. So the bill appears to have created an exemption that would apply to companies like Apple who offer ADP/encryption.

Thank you for doing the work most wouldn’t think to do — Inform themselves so they don’t just adopt someone else’s opinion. I’ll read this a bit more in-depth later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: justanotherdave
Ah, so it was just written really poorly.
Like if I said I had an argument with someone in Toronto, and then another argument with someone 3 cities away, except the person 3 cities away was my next door neighbour.

Exactly — poorly written, yes... geographically inept, maybe... but this isn’t the evidence that would support it.
 
I always assume there are. There is also planned obsolescence in algorithms, this is documented (NSA/Snowden).

The icon here from Apple, I interpreted the "space" between the lock latch and the apple to be a clue, about MITM lurking (man in the middle).

I don't think this is paranoia, I think you have to assume that anything you put out in a public service (at least) has some means of access by a third party (state-sponsored, especially). It's just going to get worse. I digress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigg Macc
A back door into encryption is, by definition, a systemic vulnerability. So the bill appears to have created an exemption that would apply to companies like Apple who offer ADP/encryption.
Evidently both Apple and Meta consider the bill a threat, both companies presumably have a lot of lawyers and don't like wasting their time and resources, so I take it there is a danger here.

Thank you for doing the work most wouldn’t think to do — Inform themselves so they don’t just adopt someone else’s opinion.
Fair, but it's not just theirs. From 9-To-5 Mac:

Apple pushes back against Canadian bill that could force companies to weaken encryption Avatar for Marcus Mendes Marcus Mendes | May 7 2026 - 8:26 pm PT

From that article:

"Apple and Meta are publicly opposing a new Canadian bill that they say could force tech companies to break encryption or build backdoors into their products. "

"As reported by Reuters, a new bill could give the government power to force companies to break encryption or build backdoors into their products."

"Although it does not specifically mention encryption, Apple argues that the proposal’s access powers could still be used to compel companies to weaken encrypted services."

My concern is that such measures are often not 'the final word' on a matter, but rather the latest step in an ongoing progression. Like with CALEA in the U.S., which has been expanded upon over time.
 
In a closed system like Apple OSs, if you don't control the encryption key, then it is not encrypted.

In none of Apple's software do you control the encryption key. Sure Apple says it created a random key and it is stored in a proprietary Secure Enclave. They say they don't have access to it. But there are a few problems with Apple's statements.

1. We know companies lie all the time. Even Apple.
2. If there exists a national security letter that precludes Apple from being honest, then Apple will lie.
3. There are not been any big media stories about the FBI needing to break into Apple devices. So the FBI must have access somehow. Their bluster and power seeking would not allow the FBI to simply take a back seat to Apple.
4. We know the government lies to us all the time.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: DestructoTim
An unelected Prime Minister who obtained a majority by enticing members of the other parties to changes sides.

There is nothing democratic going on in Canada, and if we weren't right next to the USA the situation would be worse than the UK. As a Canadian I bear the unpopular hope that Trump puts even more pressure on our government.
 
Will politicians never learn? This has been tried many different times, in numerous counties and it, so far, has failed!

The whole “straw man” arguments tried; the “child porn,” “sex traffickers,” “national security” and “cryptocurrency scams” are so not worth the threat of a back door that, if implemented, would be cracked in a matter of hours. This results in further loss of trust, both of our personal devices and our governments.

Canada … Pull your heads out of your arses and see the dangers you want to implement.
Politicians have learned from previous failures and continue tweak their approach to getting this type of legislation passed. They'll never stop in their quest for control though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drrich2 and nt5672
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.