Fact check: CARNEY'S BILL C-2 PERMITS POLICE TO ADD TRACKING SOFTWARE TO YOUR ELECTIONIC DEVICES, COVERTLY AND IT CAN GAG TECH COMPANIES FROM DISCLOSING THE INSTALLATION

1. Summary of the results

The original statement contains several claims that are not fully accurate based on the available analyses. While Bill C-2 does expand law enforcement powers regarding electronic data access, it's more nuanced than claimed:

• The bill allows law enforcement to obtain "basic subscriber information" from online service providers and streaming websites without a warrant in urgent circumstances ^{[1] [2]}
• It enables authorities to access location data and subscriber information without judicial oversight ^[3]
• However, no source explicitly confirms the ability to "add tracking software" to devices covertly

Regarding the "gag order" claim, there is partial confirmation through the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's statement that the bill could potentially "gag persons or entities from disclosing these requests" ^[3]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial aspects of Bill C-2:

• It's officially called the "Strong Borders Act" and is primarily focused on border security and immigration measures ^{[4] [5]}
• The bill is part of a broader framework allowing information sharing between:
• Police
• Border services
• Intelligence agencies ^[2]
• The legislation specifically targets "urgent, time-sensitive circumstances" for warrantless access ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement appears to be written in an alarmist tone that may overstate the bill's surveillance capabilities:

• It presents the tracking capability as definitive when no source explicitly confirms this power
• It fails to mention the bill's primary focus on border security and immigration ^[4]
• It omits the "urgent circumstances" requirement for warrantless access ^[2]

Several groups have stakes in this narrative:

• Law enforcement agencies benefit from expanded powers for investigation and intelligence gathering
• Privacy advocacy groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association raise legitimate concerns about surveillance overreach ^[3]
• Opposition politicians may benefit from portraying the bill as more invasive than it actually is
• Tech companies may face increased compliance costs and reputational risks from these requirements