Why Someone Without Papers Might Have an Easier Shot at Joining Canada’s Na

Why Someone Without Papers Might Have an Easier Shot at Joining Canada’s National Police Force Than a Cyber Analyst Raising Critical EMF Concerns

By Gerard King | Cybersecurity & Intelligence Analyst
www.gerardking.dev

At first glance, it seems counterintuitive: someone born outside of Canada and lacking official immigration papers could, under certain circumstances, apply to the national police force, whereas professionals like me—armed with deep knowledge of cyber-physical threats such as Persistent Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Emissions (PLF-EME) from data centers—face barriers, exclusion, or outright dismissal.

This isn’t a simple question of paperwork or citizenship alone. Instead, it exposes deeper systemic failures and institutional blind spots within Canadian policing recruitment and operational culture—failures that jeopardize national security in ways few inside or outside the system recognize.

1. Recruitment Policies vs. Specialized Expertise

National policing agencies often emphasize diversity targets, community representation, and broad inclusion goals—vital social aims. This can create pathways for applicants from varied backgrounds, including those with complex immigration status, assuming certain legal provisions or exceptions.

However, specialized cyber expertise remains undervalued or misunderstood within recruitment and operational hierarchies. This means highly skilled individuals warning about critical vulnerabilities like PLF-EME—low-frequency emissions from data infrastructure that can cause interference with tactical communications or even covert surveillance—are often sidelined or ignored.

2. The ‘Paper’ Paradox: Citizenship vs. Capability

Legal citizenship is mandatory for most official roles, yet certain exceptions or temporary measures exist in the recruitment pipeline to foster inclusivity.
Meanwhile, capability—especially technical and cyber capability—is not sufficiently weighed, partly because policing culture is still rooted in traditional law enforcement methods and less in complex tech ecosystems.

The result: those who critically analyze and challenge existing systems, despite their expertise, often face institutional resistance, while bureaucratic leeway might enable less qualified individuals to apply.

3. Persistent Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Emissions (PLF-EME): An Overlooked Threat

PLF-EME, emanating from large data centers and critical infrastructure, is a real and documented issue. These emissions can:

Disrupt secure police radio frequencies and communication systems.
Leak sensitive operational data unintentionally.
Create vulnerabilities in surveillance and counter-surveillance activities.

Despite this, policing agencies have yet to integrate comprehensive monitoring or mitigation strategies. Worse, experts raising alarms are often dismissed or marginalized, perceived as “overly technical” or “disruptive.”

4. Institutional Culture: Resistance to Critical Voices

The policing environment—especially at federal levels—tends to value conformity and chain-of-command obedience over disruptive critique. Analysts like myself, who dig beneath the surface and expose uncomfortable truths about technological vulnerabilities, often find themselves blacklisted or excluded.

This cultural inertia means the system protects itself from internal critique rather than empowering it, ironically reducing overall security.

5. Why This Matters: National Security Implications

If national police forces cannot or will not incorporate cyber-physical expertise to address threats like PLF-EME, they are leaving a critical blind spot open to exploitation by hostile actors.

Meanwhile, the ease with which individuals without full documentation might enter recruitment pathways reflects a disjointed approach to vetting: social and political factors are emphasized at the expense of technical security competence and critical thinking.

6. Conclusion: Bridging the Gap Between Cyber Expertise and Policing

Canada’s national policing agencies must recalibrate recruitment and operational priorities:

Recognize and integrate advanced cyber-physical expertise.
Address technological vulnerabilities such as PLF-EME proactively.
Foster a culture that encourages critical technical voices instead of silencing them.
Balance social inclusivity with rigorous security capability assessments.

Until this happens, there will be a dangerous mismatch between who can enter policing and who is qualified to protect the integrity of Canada’s security infrastructure—both digitally and physically.

As someone deeply familiar with these vulnerabilities, I can say with certainty: the system needs me—and others like me—more than it knows. Yet ironically, it currently pushes us away.

Why Someone Without Papers Might Have an Easier Shot at Joining Canada’s Na