Thanks for the article Garth and your comments. What is missing from all this is a small "r". The author is Vass Bednar not Bedna. She is a CIGI senior fellow working at the intersection of technology and public policy as the managing director of the Canadian Shield Institute. She is a really smart cookie and reading this article, I see a lot of points that mirror what we are saying in our submission. Garth's comments are also on point, and well reflected in our submission. There are many elements to this discussion and all we can do is engage in the discussion where we have resources to do so.

On that note, I have given the whole submission another serious read-through (on paper), will make the need (minor) corrections and file it today.

Marita

Re: Vass Bedna.  As U.S. state and Big Tech become one, we become digital serfs, and it sucks.  The Globe and Mail, March 12, 2026

 I ask myself, if “Canada” gained the national digital sovereignty outlined in the attached essay, and therefore had the same capacity for surveillance of Canadians as US corporations now do, what difference would it make to me?  While I agree with the red flags raised in this article enough to contribute it to our discussions, I feel the need to outline what I expect remains a contrary and perhaps naïve opinion. To me, the real societal issue is individual digital autonomy, not just Canadian digital sovereignty as a matter of national security.

 Beginning in 1992, as the Internet emerged and I became involved in community networking, I have frequently stated that the online simulation of me through data collection is an extension of myself.  Therefore, it must belong to me, not to the agencies that collect the data that makes it possible. Data about me as their property makes me a consumer, not a person. In the early days of the Internet, there was a debate about this, under the awkward heading of user-centric digital identity. That debate faded from sight, largely because the corporations participating in it didn’t want it to succeed.  As artificial intelligence magnifies the capacity to simulate my identity by many orders of magnitude, that debate, under the heading of individual digital autonomy, needs to re-emerge.

 When technological advances cause major societal changes, the language used to anticipate the consequences is the one describing the existing technologies affecting the organization of society. A simple way to express this is how we referred to automobiles as horseless carriages, understanding them in terms of the existing transportation system, not the one about to extend the possibilities of transportation into entirely different phase spaces of land use and social organization.  It is only now that we are leaving it that we have a vocabulary to describe the societal and environmental consequences of living in a car culture. To reframe our understanding of what is happening to us, we have to evolve a new vocabulary.  

 It seems to me that the context for applied imagination, origination, creation, invention, authorship, and even learning is rapidly changing. As a consequence, maybe we should consider that the assumptions behind the ideas of copyright, privacy and intellectual property are now becoming the equivalent of the horseless carriage? While I admit that I don’t have the capacity to frame the necessary new language to anticipate the changes on their own terms, I believe that insisting on individual digital autonomy in the ownership of the simulation of myself highlights those changes in a way that is useful in making a start.  

Digital serfs of the world, arise!  You have nothing to lose in a redefinition of the way your efforts are rewarded.

GG

_______________________________________________
Tcadvisors mailing list -- tcadvisors@lists.ncf.ca
To unsubscribe send an email to tcadvisors-leave@lists.ncf.ca