For no other type of property would this be considered. We would never legally protect non-owner locks to all guns in a country where many are uncomfortable with the mere registration of long guns. We would never legally protect non-owner locks on our homes, alleging it was necessary to protect the insurance industry from fraud. We would never legally protect non-owner locks on our cars, allegedly to ensure that automobiles could never be used as a getaway vehicle.
I find it frustrating that the same majority Conservative government that is wanting to end the mere registration of long guns has been unwilling to listen to anyone wanting to discuss their desire to legally protect non-owner locks on our communications technology. There will be a time when more of the Conservative party membership will understand the real-world implications of the "technological measures" aspects of Bill C-11, and will be demanding to know why the Conservative party abandoned their historical protection of tangible property rights.