Military-grade spyware, once the province of shadowy intelligence outfits, is now being handed over to local police forces. As an Ontario resident, I find this deeply unsettling. These tools are powerful, precise, and built for a level of strategic nuance that most municipal sometimes even provincial police simply aren’t equipped to handle. It’s like handing a ten-year-old a scalpel and asking them to perform surgery. The intentions might be sincere, but the training, context, and oversight just aren’t there. And that gap between tool and user is where things start to slip where privacy erodes, rights get sidelined, and the line between public safety and state overreach gets dangerously blurry.
What Is Spyware and How Does It Work?
At its core, spyware is software designed to secretly infiltrate and monitor digital devices usually without the knowledge or consent of the person being targeted. Once installed, it can track online activity, harvest sensitive information, and even take control of device functions like cameras and microphones.
Military-grade spyware, like NSO Group’s Pegasus or Paragon’s Graphite, takes this to another level. These advanced tools can penetrate even the most secure devices, including phones protected by encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp, iMessage, and Signal. Some spyware even uses “zero-click” exploits meaning the target doesn’t need to click a suspicious link for their device to be compromised. This isn’t just like wiretapping a phone call. Spyware can reveal a person’s entire digital life recording private conversations, tracking real-time locations, logging browsing histories, and accessing stored files. For police, it’s revolutionary. But for the rest of us? It’s a chilling reminder that nothing is truly private anymore.
Why Are Local Police Using Spyware?
So, why are local police turning to such extreme surveillance measures? The short answer: encryption. As more people use encrypted communication platforms, traditional surveillance methods like wiretapping are becoming less effective. Criminal organizations, human traffickers, and other bad actors know how to hide their tracks using secure apps, creating a major challenge for law enforcement. Spyware gives police a way around these barriers by directly accessing the suspect’s device and collecting evidence that would otherwise be out of reach.
And there’s public pressure, too. With high-profile crimes making headlines, law enforcement is under intense pressure to deliver fast results. Spyware, with its ability to gather and analyze large amounts of information in real time, can speed up investigations and improve the odds of making an arrest.
In Canada, local police forces are increasingly adopting advanced surveillance technologies to stay ahead of tech-savvy criminals. But as these tools become more common, there’s a growing concern: Who’s watching the watchers?
Ontario Police and “Graphite” Spyware Controversy
A recent example that’s sparked public debate is Ontario police’s use of Graphite spyware. This highly advanced tool can bypass encrypted communications and operate without leaving a trace, meaning police can monitor individuals without them ever knowing. Police officials claim they only use Graphite in the most serious cases. But here’s the catch there’s little public information about how often it’s used or what safeguards are in place. Without transparency, it’s impossible to know whether police are sticking to serious crimes or deploying these powerful tools for more routine investigations.
Civil liberties advocates are especially worried that spyware could be turned against people who challenge authority—journalists, political activists, or marginalized communities. And it’s not just happening in Ontario. Across the globe, police forces are quietly adopting military-grade spyware, often without public input or clear legal oversight.
RCMP’s Use of Spyware
It’s not just local police getting in on the action. In 2022, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) revealed they had been using spyware to monitor suspects’ devices. Between 2018 and 2020, they used these tools in at least ten investigations accessing text messages, emails, photos, and even activating cameras and microphones.
The RCMP defended their use of spyware, arguing that it’s necessary to combat criminals using encrypted communication. But critics weren’t convinced. The revelation raised major questions about how often police are using these tools, what legal checks are in place, and whether the public is being left in the dark.
Threat to Democracy and Civil Liberties
The use of military-grade spyware by local police raises a host of legal and ethical concerns. Existing privacy laws many of which were written long before smartphones even existed are struggling to keep up with these new surveillance capabilities.
A big issue is the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. In Canada, Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals from invasive searches without a warrant. But spyware’s ability to secretly collect massive amounts of personal data blurs the lines. Are current legal safeguards enough to protect our digital lives?
Unchecked surveillance isn’t just about privacy it’s a direct threat to democracy. In a free society, people should be able to speak openly, organize, and challenge authority without fear of constant monitoring. But when people believe their communications are being watched, they start to hold back. This “chilling effect” not only silences private conversations but also discourages political participation and weakens public debate.
Imagine knowing your texts, calls, or emails could be scrutinized. Would you still feel safe discussing controversial topics or criticizing those in power? Probably not. This fear is especially dangerous for journalists, activists, and whistleblowers—people who rely on secure communication to expose corruption. Without privacy protections, the truth becomes harder to uncover, and those willing to speak out may decide the risk isn’t worth it.
Surveillance affects everyone, not just those being watched. Knowing you might be monitored makes you more cautious, changing what you say, who you associate with, and even what you search for online. This “panopticon effect” stifles free expression and discourages legal political activities.
The legal implications are just as troubling. Law enforcement sometimes disguises evidence gathered through secret surveillance, a practice known as parallel construction making it harder for defendants to challenge the legality of the investigation. Historically, marginalized communities have faced the brunt of state surveillance, and advanced spyware could deepen these inequalities.
At its core, this is a question of power. When law enforcement can monitor communications without oversight, the balance of power shifts away from the public. Without clear legal safeguards and independent audits, the potential for abuse grows and the freedom to dissent becomes fragile.
What can be done? Stronger legal protections are a must. Spyware use should be limited to serious cases, with robust judicial oversight and regular independent audits. Transparency is also essential—the public deserves to know how often these tools are used and why.
Democracy thrives when the public is informed and empowered to hold those in power accountable. Without action, unchecked surveillance threatens to erode the very freedoms that define open societies.
What Needs to Change: Policy Recommendations
What needs to change isn’t complicated it’s just inconvenient for those who benefit from the current vacuum. First, there must be strict legal standards that spell out exactly when and how spyware can be used, and it should be limited to serious criminal investigations, not fishing expeditions. Any use must go through judicial oversight, not rubber-stamped approvals, but independent scrutiny with real teeth, followed by audits and public reporting.
Transparency isn’t optional. Law enforcement must disclose how often this technology is used, in what contexts, and with what outcomes. As for the vendors, they don’t get to wash their hands of responsibility once the contract is signed. If they build it, they should be accountable for how it’s used. And finally, the public needs to be brought into the conversation—not with sanitized press releases, but with actual input and influence over how surveillance laws are shaped. Because if you’re going to watch us, the very least you can do is let us watch back.
Conclusion
So here we are again. Local police, handed military-grade spyware with all the grace and restraint of a kid handed the keys to a Lamborghini. It’s not the first time this kind of play-pretend has crept in under the guise of public safety. Back in the Reagan years, we watched law enforcement scoop up military surplus like it was Halloween candy armored vehicles, riot gear, assault rifles because nothing says “community policing” like a small-town cop in desert camo riding a tank down Wellington Street. Now it’s digital. Same theater, new props.
This isn’t about safety. It’s about power, and the irresistible thrill of playing army with real gear. Spyware is just the latest toy in a long line of hand-me-downs from institutions built for war, not municipal crime. And yet here we are, pretending the average local police department has the legal fluency, technical literacy, or ethical clarity to wield it responsibly.
Let’s not kid ourselves. No amount of policy gloss or after-the-fact justification is going to turn this into something principled. The problem isn’t just what they’re doing. it’s that they don’t even seem to understand the stakes. We are not governed by tyrants. We are governed by poseurs who want to dress like them.
So if we keep letting this slide and keep handing out surveillance kits to people who barely passed their tech certifications, we’d better get used to watching our freedoms rot under the weight of institutional cosplay.
Marc-Roger Gagné MAPP
@ottlegalrebels
.
