The article discusses the ongoing debate about privacy in Canada, particularly with regards to big tech companies and their handling of personal data. The author argues that while governments are increasingly invoking privacy as a reason to keep citizens from accessing important information, this is often used to avoid accountability and transparency.

Some examples cited in the article include:

* Government officials refusing to provide information about a serial killer's activities, citing his "privacy" even posthumously * The Canada Border Services Agency refusing to release information about a convicted child sex offender's attempt to enter Canada * Tech companies such as Meta and X laying off staff who monitored privacy and safety risks and replacing them with community-driven moderation

Experts are quoted as saying that Canada lags behind other countries in terms of data protection laws, and that the lack of self-regulation from tech companies is a major concern. Some also suggest that the focus on individual rights may be misguided, and that we need to consider broader societal needs when creating laws and policies around privacy.

However, others argue that citizens can take steps to protect their own privacy in this new world. For example:

* Using "finstas" (fake Instagram identities) to share content without revealing one's real identity * Being mindful of what information is being shared with whom * Not feeling obligated to provide personal data when it is not necessary

The article concludes by highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to privacy, one that balances individual rights with broader societal needs.

Key points:

* Governments are increasingly invoking privacy as a reason to keep citizens from accessing important information * Tech companies lack self-regulation and have been accused of prioritizing profits over user safety * Canada lags behind other countries in terms of data protection laws * Citizens can take steps to protect their own privacy, such as using "finstas" or being mindful of what information is shared with whom

Tone:

The tone of the article is critical and concerned. The author argues that governments and tech companies are failing to prioritize transparency and accountability, and that this has serious consequences for citizens' rights to know. However, they also offer a message of hope and empowerment, encouraging readers to take control of their own privacy in this new world.

Target audience:

The article appears to be targeted at a general audience interested in technology and social issues. The language is accessible and the concepts are explained in a clear and concise manner.