TL;DR
Get the latest gadgets delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Signal says it will not change its service to collect and retain user metadata if Canada’s Bill C-22 imposes that requirement. The bill was amended to reduce the proposed retention period from one year to six months, but its final terms and passage remain unresolved.
Signal says it will not change its product to collect and retain user metadata if Canada’s proposed Bill C-22 requires it to do so, renewing the company’s warning as Parliament considers the surveillance legislation. The bill was amended to reduce a proposed metadata retention period from one year to six months, but Signal says even that requirement would mean collecting information it does not currently keep.
The statement came from Udbhav Tiwari, Signal’s vice president of strategy and global affairs, in response to amendments made by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree. Tiwari said the company would not make changes to its product to retain the additional information. Signal had previously warned it could leave Canada in response to the bill, according to the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), whose Digital Security Digest reported on the dispute.
As described by FPF, the bill would give police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service greater surveillance powers by requiring internet and electronic service providers to retain customer metadata. Such information can include who communicated with whom, when communications took place and, for calls, their duration. Metadata is distinct from message content, though it can reveal patterns of communication.
Signal says it currently retains a user’s phone number, the timestamp of account creation and the timestamp of the most recent connection to the service. FPF reports that a legal requirement to keep additional metadata would substantially expand what Signal stores. The source material does not specify which exact categories of metadata the bill would require Signal to retain or how the requirement would apply to the service.
A Test for Encrypted Messaging in Canada
The dispute concerns a practical limit on what a privacy-focused messaging service says it can provide to authorities: Signal cannot hand over historical records it does not collect, but a retention mandate could require it to begin collecting additional data. That could change the service’s privacy practices even if the bill does not require access to the contents of encrypted messages.
For people who rely on secure communications, including journalists and their sources, the distinction between message content and metadata matters. Records about contacts and timing can expose communication patterns. FPF argues that secure messaging tools are used by journalists in Canada and elsewhere; the consequences of any change would depend on the bill’s final scope and how it is applied.
Signal’s position also makes the potential outcome more consequential for Canadian users: the company has said it would not weaken its product by adding collection, while its earlier warning raised the possibility of withdrawing from the country. It has not, in the material cited here, announced a decision to leave.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From One-Year Retention to Six Months
FPF says it covered Signal’s warning in May, when the company said it might pull out of Canada in response to Bill C-22. In June, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree amended the proposal to reduce the metadata retention period from one year to six months. The source does not state the calendar year for those events.
Anandasangaree’s spokesman said the proposed law would not require decryption of end-to-end encrypted services and would not “permit or compel companies to introduce systemic vulnerabilities or so-called ‘backdoors.’” That statement addresses access to encrypted content and software vulnerabilities; Signal’s objection, as reported by FPF, is that a metadata retention requirement would still force a major change to what the service stores.
The account is based on FPF’s report and the statements it attributes to Signal and the minister’s spokesman. It does not include the full text of the bill or independent legal analysis of how its requirements would apply to Signal.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Bill Scope and Signal’s Response
The materials provided do not establish Bill C-22’s final wording, its current legislative status, or whether Parliament has passed it. They also do not clarify exactly what metadata providers would have to retain, how the requirements would apply to encrypted messaging services, or what enforcement powers the bill would provide.
Signal has stated that it will not change its product to collect the additional metadata described in the report. Although it previously warned it might leave Canada, the available information does not confirm that it has decided to withdraw, say when such a move might occur, or explain what service access Canadian users would retain if the law took effect. The spokesman’s assurances about encryption are attributed claims, not a substitute for the bill’s text or an independent assessment of its legal effect.
secure messaging app for journalists
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Parliament’s Next Steps on C-22
The next key development is whether Canadian lawmakers advance, further amend or reject Bill C-22. The source does not provide a timetable for parliamentary consideration or identify a scheduled vote. The final bill text and any official guidance on how it would apply to providers such as Signal will help clarify the practical consequences.
Signal’s stated position is that it will not add metadata collection to its product to meet the requirement. Whether the company would take further steps if the bill becomes law remains unresolved. FPF urged Canadians to contact their members of Parliament and oppose the bill, but that is advocacy by the organisation, not an official government action or a forecast of the bill’s outcome.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What is Signal objecting to in Bill C-22?
Signal objects to a proposed requirement to retain additional user metadata. FPF describes that information as potentially including who communicated, when and for how long; the exact categories required are not clear from the source material.
Did Canada reduce the proposed retention period?
Yes. According to FPF, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree amended the proposal to reduce the period from one year to six months.
Would the bill require Signal to decrypt messages?
A spokesman for the public safety minister said the proposal would not require decryption of end-to-end encrypted services or compel systemic vulnerabilities or backdoors. That is the spokesman’s description; the source does not provide the full bill text or an independent legal analysis.
Is Signal leaving Canada?
That has not been confirmed. Signal previously warned it might withdraw, but the statement reported by FPF says the company will not change its product to collect more metadata. The source does not report a final decision to leave.
What information does Signal currently retain?
As reported by FPF, Signal retains a user’s phone number and timestamps for account creation and the user’s most recent connection to the service.
Source: fediverse
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
