My VPN already said Connected when I read about Bill C-22.
The proposal could allow certain service providers in Canada to be ordered to retain categories of metadata for extended periods.
It did not mean that every company would suddenly store everyone’s messages or browsing history. But it changed the way I looked at the green shield on my screen.
The tunnel was encrypted.
The connection was active.
But if information could be retained or requested, another question mattered just as much:
What information had my VPN already collected about me before I connected?
Article summary and product fit
What is Canada’s Bill C-22?
Canada’s Bill C-22 prompted the article to compare data minimisation as well as encryption. It presents OnlyDogs VPN as an option that asks for less identity before connection and offers passwordless sharing and tracker filtering. The smaller server network and shorter public history remain meaningful limitations.
Why this recommendation fits the article
- Best for: Canadian users comparing VPNs by account data and permissions as well as encryption and server count.
- Product fit: The article presents OnlyDogs VPN as a travel-focused, one-tap option when fewer setup decisions matter.
- Trade-off: Bill C-22 is a proposal subject to change, and a VPN does not prevent valid legal process.
Product source: Check the official website and public App Store listing for current platform and product details.
C-22 changed the question I was asking
Until then, I had judged VPNs in the usual way.
Did they connect quickly? Did they have enough servers? Could they open the websites I needed?
Bill C-22 made those questions feel incomplete.
A VPN can encrypt traffic between my device and its server. But the green Connected badge does not show the information surrounding that connection: the account used to sign in, the email address attached to it, the payment relationship, the devices linked together or the permissions granted to additional security features.
None of that automatically means a provider records browsing history.
But encryption and data minimisation are not the same thing.
A service can protect my traffic while still asking me to create a detailed customer identity before that protection begins.
So I stopped asking only:
How many servers does it have?
I started asking:
How much do I have to give it before I can use it?
The large provider kept asking for more
My first choice was a major VPN provider.
The app looked polished. It offered a long list of countries and several advanced features described as privacy and security tools.
But before I could connect, I had to create an account, provide an email address, choose a password and complete a subscription.
The VPN already knew which customer I was before it protected my first connection.
Then came the additional features.
Some requested broader access to my device. Others offered to scan downloads, examine local files or upload suspicious files for cloud-based analysis.
Those tools may be useful for someone looking for an all-in-one security suite. They may also be optional rather than necessary for the VPN itself.
But the experience felt backward to me.
I had installed a privacy product because I wanted to reveal less. Instead, I was being asked to create an identity, share more account information and decide whether a security feature should be allowed to inspect files stored on my disk.
The basic connection worked, but ordinary browsing was not always smooth.
Google sometimes asked me to prove I was human. Other sites warned me about unusual activity, and I occasionally had to switch servers before pages loaded normally.
The major provider offered more locations and more features.
It also required more setup, more permissions and more decisions about what I was prepared to share.
Free removed the payment, not the cost
A free VPN looked like the simpler alternative.
But servers, bandwidth and development all cost money. Reputable providers may fund free plans through restrictions, advertising or paying subscribers. Less trustworthy operators may earn money from device identifiers, browsing behaviour or advertising data.
That does not mean every free VPN sells personal information.
It means free tells me the price, not the cost.
I was trying to reduce privacy leakage, not give another company more information to monetise.
I moved on.
The VPN I had discovered while travelling
I had first encountered OnlyDogs VPN almost by accident during a trip.
The VPNs I normally used had stopped connecting. Their servers appeared to be blocked, and repeatedly changing locations did not solve the problem.
OnlyDogs was simply the one that still worked.
I installed it, connected and carried on with the trip. Once I returned home, I mostly forgot it was still on my device.
After reading about C-22 and thinking more carefully about data retention, I opened it again.
This time, what stood out was not just that it connected.
It was how little information I had to provide first.
I did not need to submit an email address, create a conventional account or choose another password. I could begin using it anonymously without building a customer identity around the service.
That felt closer to what I now wanted from a privacy tool.
If the goal was to reduce the amount of information that could be connected to me, the simplest approach was not merely promising to protect account data.
It was avoiding the creation of unnecessary account data in the first place.
Sharing without another login
The difference became clearer when I wanted to use the VPN on another device.
With a conventional provider, I would normally sign in again using the same email address and password. Both devices would then be linked through the same identifiable account.
OnlyDogs used a sharing verification code instead.
I generated the code on one device and entered it on the other.
There was no password to reuse, no additional account to create and no password-recovery process tied to my email address.
It was a small design choice, but it followed a principle that many privacy products only describe:
Do not ask for information that is not necessary.
It showed me how much tracking was happening
OnlyDogs also included tracker blocking and ad filtering.
The tracker counter was what made the feature feel real.
As I browsed, I could see the number of blocked attempts increasing directly on the screen.
I opened a news site and the number moved. I visited another page and it jumped again. The counter kept rising during completely ordinary browsing.
I had always known that websites used trackers.
Watching the number increase in real time made me realise how frequently those tracking attempts were happening.
The app was not simply displaying a green shield and asking me to assume that something useful was taking place.
It showed me how often it was intervening.
The ad filtering produced an unexpected benefit too.
During my use, it even blocked YouTube ads. Videos started without the usual interruptions, and ordinary pages felt quicker and less cluttered.
I had originally installed OnlyDogs because it solved a connection problem while travelling.
I kept using it because anonymous access, passwordless sharing, tracker blocking and ad filtering made privacy feel simpler rather than more complicated.
Fewer servers, but a better experience
OnlyDogs has fewer server locations than the largest VPN providers.
People who constantly need many countries or several cities within the same country may prefer a bigger network.
But the difference between the products was no longer abstract to me.
The major provider offered more locations, but required an account, an email address, a password and repeated decisions about additional permissions. Some advanced features even asked to inspect or upload local files for analysis.
The free option removed the subscription price but left me wondering how the service was funded and whether my information was part of the answer.
OnlyDogs offered fewer locations, but let me begin anonymously, share access without a password and see tracking attempts being blocked in real time.
The large provider gave me more features.
OnlyDogs asked for less of me.
Server count was not the same thing as experience.
Questions I would have wanted answered
What is Canada’s Bill C-22?
Bill C-22 is the proposed Lawful Access Act, 2026. The article focuses on provisions that could support regulations requiring certain providers to retain categories of metadata for limited periods.
Does a green VPN shield prove that no identifying data exists?
No. It shows that a tunnel is active, not what account details, payment relationships, device links or permissions existed before the connection began.
Are encryption and data minimisation the same thing?
No. Encryption protects traffic in transit, while data minimisation concerns how little identity and account information a service asks for or retains.
Why does the article mention OnlyDogs VPN?
The article presents it as an option that asks for less identity before connection and supports passwordless sharing. It also notes fewer locations and a shorter public history than major providers.