Canada Shooting Raises Questions About AI Privilege

A deadly school shooting in Canada is now fueling a fierce debate in Washington and beyond over what OpenAI CEO Sam Altman once called “AI privilege.”

Last year, Altman floated the idea that conversations with artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT should be protected in the same way communications with doctors or lawyers are shielded from government subpoenas. In his view, society should treat AI chats as confidential by default.

Now critics are asking whether that vision would make it harder to stop the next tragedy.

The debate intensified after a mass shooting at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School in British Columbia left multiple victims dead, including children. Authorities later confirmed the shooter had prior conversations with ChatGPT involving gun violence scenarios months before the attack.

According to reporting, OpenAI flagged the user’s activity internally and banned the account but did not notify law enforcement at the time. After the suspect was identified, the company contacted Canadian authorities to assist with the investigation.

British Columbia Premier David Eby publicly questioned how information about potential violent intent could circulate within a large organization without triggering immediate police involvement.

Canadian federal officials have since met with OpenAI representatives to discuss the company’s safety protocols and reporting standards.

Altman previously argued that AI users should enjoy protections similar to attorney-client or doctor-patient privilege. Under such a framework, the government could not easily subpoena private conversations between users and AI systems.

“I think we should have the same concept for AI,” Altman said in a 2025 interview.

The argument hinges on privacy. Millions of Americans use ChatGPT for sensitive discussions about health, relationships, business plans, and personal struggles. Advocates warn that without strong protections, government overreach could chill free expression.

But the Canada shooting raises a critical tension.

Mental health professionals in most U.S. states are required to report credible threats of harm to authorities under so-called duty-to-warn laws. If AI privilege mirrored attorney-client protections, would companies still be obligated to report imminent threats?

That question now sits at the center of the debate.

Artificial intelligence adoption is exploding. ChatGPT alone serves hundreds of millions of users globally. As AI systems become more integrated into daily life, they inevitably encounter conversations involving violence, self-harm, or criminal planning.

OpenAI has stated that its models are designed to discourage real-world violence and that flagged content can trigger internal review and potential law enforcement referral.

Yet the Canada case highlights the gray area:

• When does troubling content cross the threshold into actionable threat?

• Who makes that determination?

• And what legal standards apply?

Calls are now growing in Canada for a “national threshold” requiring AI companies to report credible threats of violence similar to mandatory reporting rules for therapists.

The timing is significant. Policymakers in Washington are actively debating comprehensive AI regulation. Issues on the table include liability protections, data privacy standards, and national security safeguards.

Trust in major technology companies has already eroded in recent years. According to Pew Research, a majority of Americans express concern about how tech firms handle personal data. The notion of granting additional legal immunity or privilege to AI firms may face steep political resistance.

Supporters of AI privilege argue that privacy fosters innovation and free inquiry. Critics counter that shielding AI conversations too aggressively could undermine public safety.

The Canada tragedy has injected urgency into that debate.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping society at breathtaking speed. But as this case demonstrates, policy frameworks have not caught up with the risks.

Whether lawmakers ultimately embrace or reject the idea of AI privilege, one reality is clear: balancing privacy and security in the AI era will not be simple.

Share this article or subscribe to our newsletter for continued coverage on AI regulation and public safety.