In today's world, we continue to advance in technology and modernization. Significant technological integrations and developments are being made from in-home to commercial spaces. These modern technological developments have enabled us to implement forms of surveillance never before seen. Today, we have the ability to see who is at our door via our phones. We can videochat anywhere, anytime in the world, and our security systems now include facial recognition. All of which have been created to make life easier and improve our safety. Of course, with the progression of benefits, there are also several risks. Given the use of facial recognition in commercial spaces, consent becomes a serious concern. Are we consenting to be recorded and stored in a data centre the second we step into a commercial building? This is where the lines of consent become unclear. Does public safety override certain privacy rights? Due to the limits of privacy law, this becomes a pressing question. The technological progress we have made raises legal, moral, and psychological challenges. This leads us to question the balance between safety and privacy. It seems that efforts to protect and ensure security may infringe g on privacy rights in certain spaces. Privacy laws and government regulations are not exactly up to date with the fast-paced changes that the world has been making. This paper examines privacy laws, the process of data collection and consent, to determine whether individuals are adequately protected in commercial spaces. 

​

A thorough understanding of the debate surrounding privacy in commercial spaces requires the examination of how facial recognition technology functions within modern surveillance systems. Facial recognition is an AI-based technology that operates within the security camera system. It operates by analyzing facial features and consulting a database to detect a specific person (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2014). It was originally designed as a tool for law enforcement to identify suspects in criminal investigations.  As its presence has grown, its use has moved beyond its original intended purpose. Today, facial recognition is more widely used as a surveillance tool, while law officers continue to rely on it to locate and apprehend suspects. This is extremely useful for law enforcement and public safety. The authentication system used to identify individuals can be used to grant access to equipment in secure facilities,  check passport applications, and combat fraud. This system was created to increase public safety and reduce crime rates. One of the most popular brands of this technology is called Clearview AI. This AI was created to help law enforcement generate more leads, trace and identify people and anyone else present during a crime (Clearview AI, 2025). 
This AI software has also generated a lot of controversy surrounding boundaries and consent. There have been a variety of different cases of privacy law violations from this company.  Facial recognition has played a significant role in improving national security and has become increasingly used.  According to information posted on the Government of Canada's website, it appears that Canada plans to continue developing surveillance and facial recognition technology. These sources suggest that Canada intends to normalize this type of technology and wants to eliminate the backlash and security concerns raised by members of society. The government claims to want what is best for society, but may be overlooking the privacy issue. 

​

The rise of surveillance raises questions about the meaning of consent in these scenarios. In the case of surveillance, it's about reading between the lines on what you are agreeing to. Research conducted by Deloitte found that only 9 % of users actually take the time to read the terms and conditions. This is creating a psychological problem in society where people do not understand what they are agreeing to (Lugar, 2013). This is a fundamental issue when it comes to protecting privacy. Consent is being given, but without an understanding. Consent is generally understood as a form of agreement. (Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training, 2023). Researchers have found that the digital world has turned consent into more of a checkbox and set it up as a legal requirement rather than for the best interests of society. Oftentimes, companies obscure the terms of agreement and word things so people just agree and move on. Consequently, individuals may be providing consent without fully understanding how their information is being collected, stored or used (Athabasca University, 2023). 

 

A prominent issue in the debate over surveillance technologies is the meaning of consent. Many individuals express concern with the idea that they are being filmed and profiled into a recognition system. It is argued that it infringes upon privacy rights. It's important to understand the meaning of consent and navigate the dynamics between informed and implied consent. This is because the validity of the data collection process lies in how consent is obtained. Surveillance systems were much simpler years ago. Now, data collection from social media websites such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, along with online presence and surveillance, is all interconnected. Furthermore, it seems that there is a disparity in collection; nowadays, corporations, government and data collectors know more about us than we know about them. Nguyen (2025) describes this imbalance as the’ black-box condition’. From a legal perspective, this condition is a lack of transparency and translates into abuses of power by big tech companies. This is one of the main reasons people are becoming concerned (Nguyen, 2025). This raises the question: Does walking into a store/commercial space give the proper consent for this process to occur? The short answer is no. When you enter a store, and you see the sign that says “smile, you're on camera”, by entering, you have given your implied consent. This consent is just to be recorded on the CCTV footage, as it makes you aware you’re being filmed for security purposes (G Force Security, 2025). The issue here is the extent to which the consent flows. You're consenting to being on the footage, but not consenting to the whole process of profiling and data collection. That process of facial recognition is a much more distinct level of data collection that involves biometric profiling. Since facial recognition is categorised as biometric, it is personal information. Our privacy laws in Canada under PIPEDA should provide us with protection (G Force Security, 2025). Since it is considered personal information, it should be subject to strict consent requirements. No commercial space should be taking personal information without proper consent. It's unethical, undermines autonomy and violates Canadian privacy laws.

​

Concerns about facial recognition have been raised by numerous members of society and organizations. It's important to view this issue through a legal and psychological lens. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been particularly vocal regarding the issue, putting into perspective the concerns regarding Charter rights and use without notice. They argue that facial recognition in Canada is often used by the police without any warning or notice. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) states that “In a free and democratic society, police officers may interfere with the exercise of individual freedoms only to the extent permitted by law”. They make the claim that Canadians’ Charter rights are being put at risk (Canadian Civil Liberties Association, 2021). This organization has made progress in raising awareness of society's concerns and in challenging excessive surveillance practices. They wrote a deputation and co-signed a letter from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group to Minister of Public Safety Bill Blair requesting a ban. This ban was requested in hopes of creating stronger restrictions as well as bringing awareness to societies concerns regarding facial recognition tech. Letters and deputation demonstrate institutional support and help validate societies concerns. It offers a glimpse of hope that a change is happening. Organizations like this are part of making positive change for those concerned about consent and privacy in the sense there is possibly for more strict protections  (Canadian Civil Liberties Association, 2021). 

​

Beyond legal concerns, facial recognition surveillance also raises psychological concerns related to trust. Not only is it infringing on our legal rights, but also our mentality. There is a significant psychological aspect to being surveilled. Imagine knowing that every time you enter a public space, your data is being stored and collected. It's an uneasy feeling, particularly someone being able to look at an image of your face and know your name, address, where you work, and any other information stored in databases. Awareness of constant surveillance can alter your behaviour subconsciously. This includes increased levels of stress and anxiety and the rising fear of being watched and judged. This creates a blurred line between private and public life. This can be very damaging to people's mental health, especially those who struggle with anxiety daily. This contributes significantly to growing psychological concerns surrounding privacy. Individuals may also experience fear and anxiety about data breaches and uncertainty regarding who has access to their personal information. Studies have shown that being surveilled in this way leads to lower self-esteem, a diminished sense of freedom, and altered human interactions. Research suggests that the rise of surveillance society has shaped people’s sense of self and their interactions with others. This might even lead to detachment from oneself. It creates a performative social environment in which individuals feel pressured to conform to expectations. This causes a loss of creativity and authenticity. People become hesitant to express their real beliefs and opinions, which is dangerous for politics and progressive social change (Sustainability Directory, 2025). Trust in public spaces needs to be a priority so that people feel comfortable enough to participate in social interactions and engage with their communities. 
   
Understanding how the Canadian Legal framework works in governing privacy is crucial when analysing the use of facial recognition technology. Implied consent is not sufficient here in the context of facial recognition. Our legal rights are meant to protect us from privacy infringements. First, we can look at the Charter. Regarding privacy, it seems that Section 8 is primarily responsible for covering our rights. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) states that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure”. This means that this section covers the scope of privacy, such as surveillance footage, data stored and facial recognition. This is meant to protect people and their personal privacy. Facial recognition is used by police and is biometric, as mentioned before. This means it can be considered an unreasonable search if facial recognition and data collection are done without the proper consent (Dostal, 2023). Not only does the Charter protect us, but so do bills and statutory laws. The laws regarding facial recognition technology fall under provincial and federal legislation. Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and privacy acts outline what is legal and what is not. PIPEDA covers private-sector laws that require businesses to obtain consent to collect any type of personal information. Regarding the public sector, the Privacy Act states that all federal institutions must comply with it and collect and use data only for specific authorized purposes. There is also a set of video surveillance guidelines issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2025). These guidelines include letting people know they're being recorded and avoiding camera placement in private areas. Together, these all seem like reasonable and good laws to protect our rights from unjustified invasions of privacy. Unfortunately, some limitations align with the rapid technological developments paired with the slower legal developments. 

 

Privacy laws, like the broader legal system,  evolve slowly over time. Technology does not; it is extremely fast-paced. As our technology advances, AI systems are on the rise; the law must stay up to date. Canada's Federal Privacy Act, enacted in 1982, although there have been changes and amendments over the past few years, is not designed to keep pace with the fast-paced nature of AI (McPhail, 2024). The structure of Canadian law struggles to address and adapt to the complexities of contemporary surveillance tech. This gap of change matters. The laws meant to protect us are built on convention before technological integration, not modernization and development. When people are not properly notified,  or the consent is to be implied, then privacy is not properly protected and existing protections become weakened. There is also another limitation.

Another limitation arises when the government agencies utilize surveillance technologies in a way that extends beyond existing privacy guidelines. Returning to the point about consent, the trust issues caused by the previous use of this software are difficult to repair. If the government uses this technology without our knowledge, our rights get overlooked and are considered to be irrelevant. The message this sends damages the trust within the system. Due to previous issues, trust is already harder to rebuild once rights have been infringed upon. 

​

The government has taken action before by striking down on FRT misuse. This points to a positive change, but many cases have gone unnoticed. For example, there was a case in BC where Canadian Tire was investigated by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC. Between 2018 and 2021, an investigation found that Canadian Tire was using facial recognition technology without properly notifying individuals in the store that they were under this type of surveillance (OIPC, 2023). This meant that there was no consent from the people whose data they collected. No shoppers were notified that this process was taking place. Canadian Tire justified this practice as an effort to reduce theft. Upon investigation, it was found that the practice extended beyond a single location, involving 12 stores. The stores failed to comply with the laws governing the use of technology in retail stores (OIPC, 2023). Canadian Tire would have needed a very compelling case, with sufficient evidence and reasoning to justify the permitted use of customer data collection and profiling. To stop shoplifters was simply not enough. This case sets an important precedent to prevent this from continuing in the future. It also presents us with an alternative perspective on government enforcement of laws. While much of the debate surrounding facial recognition technologies has centred on concerns about privacy, legality and misuse, here we see the more positive side of the government taking control of the technology’s use. The investigation into  Canadian Tire's failure to use implied consent highlights the importance of these violations, while also highlighting the government's ability to intervene and regulate certain FRT misuse.

    

The Canadian Tire case shows effective regulatory action; there are many other situations where enforcement has been limited. While some cases are addressed, others remain undetected.  Blurred lines and regulatory limitations still exist regarding facial recognition and data collection. Members of society are concerned about their democratic rights regarding the issue. Along with that, individuals are also worried about new forms of discrimination emerging.  The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has found that people think facial recognition technology will cause a rise in sexism, racism and ableism and new forms of economic exclusion built into systems (McPhail, 2024). This is a major issue as this opens doors for new forms of exclusion and sets back social justice pathways. The government has responded to these claims in various ways. One response has been the launch of investigations into Clearview AI. The Clearview AI lawsuit and investigation were a major step in curbing the use of FRT without consent. This lawsuit is about the RCMP’s use of Clearview AI facial recognition (Government of Canada, 2025). There have been quite a few strikes on this AI platform. So it seems the government is aware of the people's concerns and has taken a few steps to improve conditions. Although conditions have improved slightly, there is still more progress to be made. 

The debate surrounding facial recognition technology remains divided. Society feels that its privacy has been infringed upon and that it has lost trust. Versus the government that has shut down certain misuses of FRT but still pushes for the rise and integration into society for crime prevention. Each perspective raises its own concern.  

Either way, research suggests that necessary reforms are needed to the existing legal framework. This is due to the fast-paced growth and integration of this technology into government and social systems. Implementing clearer rules for government use and imposing more limitations would prevent the government from using this technology when people are unaware. This consists of regulations on software usage, limiting data collection and retaining the proper form of consent if being used. That way, people will feel safer. Aside from legal reform, it is also important to address the psychological effects and impacts of surveillance. This includes making the already suggested reforms and implementing programs that mitigate the negative effects. That way, we can move on from the negative mental state that constant surveillance puts people into. 

​

Facial recognition is not just a security feature; it has significant implications for consent, privacy and social behaviour. It reshapes the meaning of consent by reinforcing implied consent. By looking at how facial recognition technology extends beyond Charter protections and PIPEDA, the implied agreement does not constitute actual consent. At the same time, there are also pressing psychological matters that cause trust issues and affect behaviour. Based on research and reports from government institutions, there is evidence that change is underway. In terms of moving forward and finding a way to make society feel safer and more protected by the law, while still preserving privacy, it is important to make legal amendments and keep pace with technological advances. We need clearer consent standards, amended laws and limitations imposed on data collection and use. 

If this is done, then society can move toward a state where people feel more comfortable in public spaces. If the laws regarding privacy fully protect us against surveillance, and when we are under FRT, it's through properly given consent, then it's possible to allow the technology to be used responsibility without undermining any privacy protections or causing any psychological issues. We should work to find the balance between technological innovation and the protection of human rights, so that trust is maintained in both public institutions and digital technology. 
 

​​​​

​

References 

 

1. Athabasca University. (2023, January 27). In terms of data privacy, what does consent actually mean? YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djZlCvzpVCU

2. Canadian Civil Liberties Association. (2021, July 15). Facial surveillance protecting your privacy 
   rights from AI. https://ccla.org/our-work/privacy/surveillance-technology/facial-recognition/

3. Clearview AI. (2025). Facial Recognition.
   https://www.clearview.ai/#:~:text=Clearview%20AI%20is%20advancing%20public,faster%20and%20keep%20communities%20safe

4. Dostal, P. (2023, January). Reasonable expectation of privacy. Criminal Law Notebook. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Reasonable_Expectation_of_Privacy

5. G Force Security. (2025, September 15). Understanding Canadian privacy laws for CCTV monitoring. https://www.gforcesecurity.ca/canadian-privacy-laws-for-cctv-camera-monitoring/

6. Government of Canada. (1982, April 17). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/

7. Government of Canada, D. of J. (2024, August 20). Modernizing Canada’s privacy act. Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pa-lprp/modern.html#:~:text=information%20is%20protected.-,Next%20steps,modified:%202024%2D08%2D20

8. Government of Canada. (2025, April 2). Facial recognition lawsuit – Clearview AI. Public Safety 
   Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlmntry-bndrs/20201119/023/index-en.aspx

9. Lugar, E., Moran, S., & Rodden, T. (2013, April 27). Consent for all: Revealing the hidden 
   complexity of terms and conditions. ACM Digital Library. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2470654.2481371

10. McPhail, B. (2024, September 11). Facial recognition technology: Rights, risks and required regulation. International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. https://iclmg.ca/facial-recognition-technology-rights-risks-and-required-regulation/

11. Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training. (2023, January 27). What is consent? Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safe-campuses-bc/what-is-consent

12. Nguyen, E. (2025). Surveillance, control and consent: A survey of data privacy and governance in the age of platform society. SchoRes Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities , 2(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.59573/emsj.9(5).2025.89

13. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2014, March 13). Automated facial recognition in the public and private sectors. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/research/explore-privacy-research/2013/fr_201303/#heading-003 

14. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. (2025, August 11). Guidance for processing biometrics for federal institutions. https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/health-genetic-and-other-body-information/biometrics/gd_bio_fed-final/

15. OIPC. (2023, April 20). Investigation finds Canadian Tire Associate Dealers not authorized to use 
    facial recognition technology. News Release. https://www.oipc.bc.ca/documents/news-releases/2619

16. Sustainability Directory. (2025, August 21). Psychological impact of Surveillance → term. Lifestyle. https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/term/psychological-impact-of-surveillance/