https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/the-most-dangerous-canadian-internet-bill-youve-never-heard-of-is-a-step-closer-to-becoming-law/ Michael Geist [ ][Search] * About + Full CV + Photos + Contact * Writing + Books + Chapters + Scholarship + Columns + Columns Archive * Teaching + Regulation of Internet Commerce - January 2021 + Technology Law Internship + Global Technology Law and Policy * Speaking + Committees and Consultations + Keynote Speaking + Law Bytes Podcasts + Podcast Appearances + Video * Tech Law Topics + Bill C-10 + Copyright + Digital Tax + Digital Trade + Internet Governance + Jurisdiction + Lawful Access + Net Neutrality + Online Harms + Privacy + Surveillance + Telecom * Podcast * twitter * mastodon * mail * linkedin * feedburner * facebook * apple * spotify * google 2017 Freedom of Expression Awards by Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship https://flic.kr/p/Uvmaie (CC BY-SA 2.0) 2017 Freedom of Expression Awards by Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship https://flic.kr/p/Uvmaie (CC BY-SA 2.0) News The Most Dangerous Canadian Internet Bill You've Never Heard Of Is a Step Closer to Becoming Law December 14, 2023 After years of battles over Bills C-11 and C-18, few Canadians will have the appetite for yet another troubling Internet bill. But given a bill that envisions government-backed censorship, mandates age verification to use search engines or social media sites, and creates a framework for court-ordered website blocking, there is a need to pay attention. Bill S-210, or the Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act, was passed by the Senate in April after Senators were reluctant to reject a bill framed as protecting children from online harm. The same scenario appears to be playing out in the House of Commons, where yesterday a majority of the House voted for the bill at second reading, sending it to the Public Safety committee for review. The bill, which is the brainchild of Senator Julie Miville-Duchene, is not a government bill. In fact, government ministers voted against it. Instead, the bill is backed by the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP with a smattering of votes from backbench Liberal MPs. Canadians can be forgiven for being confused that after months of championing Internet freedoms, raising fears of censorship, and expressing concern about CRTC overregulation of the Internet, Conservative MPs were quick to call out those who opposed the bill (the House sponsor is Conservative MP Karen Vecchio). I appeared before the Senate committee that studied the bill in February 2022, where I argued that "by bringing together website blocking, face recognition technologies, and stunning overbreadth that would capture numerous mainstream services, the bill isn't just a slippery slope, it is an avalanche." As I did then, I should preface criticism of the bill by making it clear that underage access to inappropriate content is indeed a legitimate concern. I think the best way to deal with the issue includes education, digital skills, and parental oversight of Internet use including the use of personal filters or blocking tools if desired. Moreover, if there are Canadian-based sites that are violating the law in terms of the content they host, they should absolutely face investigation and potential charges. However, Bill S-210 goes well beyond personal choices to limit underage access to sexually explicit material on Canadian sites. Instead, it envisions government-enforced global website liability for failure to block underage access, backed by website blocking and mandated age verification systems that are likely to include face recognition technologies. The government establishes this regulatory framework and is likely to task the CRTC with providing the necessary administration. While there are surely good intentions with the bill, the risks and potential harms it poses are significant. The basic framework of Bill S-210 is that it creates an offence for any organization making available sexually explicit material to anyone under the age of 18 for commercial purposes. The penalty for doing so is $250,000 for the first offence and up to $500,000 for any subsequent offences. Organizations (broadly defined under the Criminal Code) can rely on three potential defences: 1. The organization instituted a "prescribed age-verification method" to limit access. It would be up to the government to determine what methods qualify with due regard for reliability and privacy. There is a major global business of vendors that sell these technologies and who are vocal proponents of this kind of legislation. 2. The organization can make the case that there is "legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts." 3. The organization took steps required to limit access after having received a notification from the enforcement agency (likely the CRTC). The enforcement of the bill is left to the designated regulatory agency, which can issue notifications of violations to websites and services. Those notices can include the steps the agency wants followed to bring the site into compliance. This literally means the government via its regulatory agency will dictate to sites how they must interact with users to ensure no underage access. If the site fails to act as instructed within 20 days, the regulator can apply for a court order mandating that Canadian ISPs block the site from their subscribers. The regulator would be required to identify which ISPs are subject to the blocking order. The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting user access and can therefore be applied to websites anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible. And what about the risk of overblocking? The bill not only envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing access to "material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization" or limiting access to anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect of full censorship of lawful content under court order based on notices from a government agency. If that isn't bad enough, there are two additional serious concerns. First, the bill is not limited to pornography sites. Rather, it applies to any site or service that makes sexually explicit materials available. This would presumably include search engines, social media sites such as Twitter, or chat forums such as Reddit, where access to explicit material is not hard to find. If the bill was limited solely to sites whose primary purpose is the commercial distribution of sexually explicit material, it might be more defensible. As it stands now, the overbroad approach leaves this bill vulnerable to constitutional challenge. Second, consider the way sites are supposed to comply with the law, by establishing age verification systems. This effectively means that sites will require their users to register with commercial age verification systems in order to run a search or access some tweets. And the age verification systems raise real privacy concerns, including mandated face recognition as part of the verification process. Senate private members bills rarely become law, but this bill is suddenly on the radar screen in a big way. The bill should not have come this far and should not be supported. Creating safeguards for underage access to inappropriate content is a laudable goal, but not at the cost of government-backed censorship, mandated face recognition, and age-approval requirements to use some of the most popular sites and services in the world. Share this: * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) * Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) * More * * Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) * Click to print (Opens in new window) * * Related posts: No related posts. Tags: Censorship / miville-duchene / s-210 / vecchio / website blocking Share this post Tweet 15 Comments 1. [f6d0347] Gogo says: December 14, 2023 at 8:45 am Thanks for continuing to push back against all the nonsense, Michael. Reply + [44c618a] Anne says: December 14, 2023 at 10:32 am These strategies will provide you $3,000 overnight, but you'll fulfill your financial needs with reliable exertion. In case you're in require of $3,000 quick, ig you may reach your objective speediest by taking on more than interior of the below. Here details...... https://financialrichmethods82.blogspot.com Reply 2. [62912d0] Brian says: December 14, 2023 at 11:32 am For all of the good that it sadly doesn't seem to do. This government, the one that campaigned on transparency only runs sham/theatre public consultations that make it look like it wants to hear what Canadians have to say, but in reality, it doesn't care and has it's mind made up about what legislation will be before any Canadian has any say. They do it at their own peril even. C-18 is a perfect example of this. Reply + [d814797] Curtis Magyar says: December 14, 2023 at 12:09 pm Did you even read the article? This not a bill introduced by the Liberals or even supported by them. It is the conservatives who are supporting this censorship. Reply o [62912d0] Brian says: December 14, 2023 at 12:16 pm Of course I did. The problem is that this silly blogging platform seems to lose reply context from time to time. My comments were in reply to the previous comments by Gogo, not the content of the article. This platform failed to stagger my comments under that comment despite my clicking the Reply under Gogo's comment. Reply o [2c6793f] Kevin says: December 14, 2023 at 5:41 pm Actually, the bill is supported by some Liberals, backbenchers. It is also supported by the NDP and Bloc. Reply 3. [fce40b1] Chris says: December 14, 2023 at 11:41 am The woman in charge of introducing this bill is literally named Karen. You can't make this stuff up. I'd love to know if we can get all private records of all of her internet search history to give her a taste of what this bill can leverage. The entire argument seems to be "Won't SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHIIILDREN!!" A nation full of pathetic Helen Lovejoys. Reply + [62912d0] Brian says: December 14, 2023 at 12:21 pm Yes, and unfortunately that cry to save the children is automatically turned around as being that you are a child molester if you oppose anything that is supposed to save them. So if you can attach a cry to save the children to something, anything, you are likely to get your way out of fear of being accused of being a pedophile if you oppose it. Reply o [d814797] Curtis Magyar says: December 14, 2023 at 2:01 pm That's exactly what the previous CPC government (which poilievre was in) did. Remember when they tried to force ISPs to spy on us and keep the records. Then when we complained they said we're either with them or were with the child Pornographers. And it was Vic Toews who said it. Same guy who left his wife and family to be with the babysitter. You couldn't even make this stuff up. Now he's a judge, appointed by Harper. Reply # [2c6793f] Kevin says: December 14, 2023 at 5:48 pm But, but, the Conservatives... The Liberals are no better. Look into the history of the current Minister of National Defence Bill Blair, in particular with the G20 in Toronto and "Project Safe City" in Toronto. In the case of the latter, the TPS were mining the databases of the Canadian Firearms Center looking for residents of Toronto whose PAL has expired. Within days of the database indicating it has expired the Guns and Gangs Unit was showing up at the persons house to confiscate the firearms. The problem? The CFC was notorious for being slow at processing the renewals, sometimes taking over 6 months to do so. Most people I know with a PAL at the time would submit via registered mail 6 months before it expired. Reply 4. [5dea18b] Dan says: December 14, 2023 at 11:41 am This is a solved problem with the CIRA DNS servers. It requires parents to make a choice and configure devices, but that's it. No facial recognition, no activity logging, no credit cards. https://www.cira.ca/en/canadian-shield/ Reply 5. [6591c02] Bruce says: December 14, 2023 at 12:13 pm While analogs to Tipper Gore may be apt, the implications are more than a label on a CD. And the problem is indeed solved by making this available through CIRA by those who want to. I once knew someone who ran a web based message board for support of a software product. It was hacked and 'sexually explicit material' was placed on there, and it damaged the real content that was supposed to be there. It was not even a week out of date -- the security safeguard customizations to meet US COPPA conformance made it impossible to patch quickly. These laws are often at loggerheads with one another and make it impossible to solve the non-intersecting solution set by the conditions these lawmakers seek to codify. Therein lies the problem with codification vs common law, redundant lawmaking, and the jurisdictional conundrum encountered by those who seek to comply? Reply 6. Pingback: The Most Risky Canadian Web Invoice You've By no methodology Heard of Is a Step Closer - TOP HACKER(tm) 7. [f400eec] Drew says: December 14, 2023 at 4:11 pm What is the best way to push back against this bill for the everyday citizen? Reply 8. [7517941] Julia says: December 14, 2023 at 5:08 pm I just got paid 7268 Dollars Working off my Laptop this month. And if you think that's cool, My Divorced friend has twin toddlers and made 0ver $ 13892 her first m0nth. It feels so good making so much money when other be02 people have to work for so much less. This is what I do.........> > > https://careersrevenue123.blogspot.com/ Reply Leave a Reply Cancel Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Comment [ ] Your Name [ ]* Your Email [ ]* Your Website [ ] [ ]Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. CAPTCHA Refresh [ ] CAPTCHA Code * [ ] Notify me of follow-up comments by email. [Submit] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] D[ ] Law Bytes Law Bytes Episode 188: Consumers, Competition or Corporate Cash Grab? - My Bill C-11 Appearance at the CRTC byMichael Geist Episode 188: Consumers, Competition or Corporate Cash Grab? - My Bill C-11 Appearance at the CRTC Search Episodes[ ]Clear Search Episode 188: Consumers, Competition or Corporate Cash Grab? - My Bill C-11 Appearance at the CRTC December 11, 2023 Michael Geist Episode 187: Jeff Elgie on What the Bill C-18 Deal with Google Means for the Future of the Canadian News Sector December 4, 2023 Michael Geist Episode 186: Andy Kaplan-Myrth on the CRTC's Last Ditch Attempt to Fix Canada's Internet Competition Problem November 27, 2023 Michael Geist Episode 185: Bill C-11 at the CRTC - A Preview of the Upcoming Online Streaming Act Hearing November 20, 2023 Michael Geist Episode 184: Philip Palmer on the Constitutional Doubts About the Government's Internet Laws November 13, 2023 Michael Geist Load More Search Results placeholder Previous Episode Show Episodes List Next Episode Show Podcast Information Law Bytes - Subscribe * apple * spotify * goodreads * stitcher * tunein * rss Recent Posts * 2017 Freedom of Expression Awards by Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship https://flic.kr/p/Uvmaie (CC BY-SA 2.0)The Most Dangerous Canadian Internet Bill You've Never Heard Of Is a Step Closer to Becoming Law * I think I need a Lear Jet by JoshNV CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 https:// flic.kr/p/3eaugwThe Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 188: Consumers, Competition or Corporate Cash Grab? - My Bill C-11 Appearance at the CRTC * CPAC, Geist CRTC Bill C-11 hearing, https://cpac.ca/episode?id= c2d2ca31-d052-4378-8245-f8ff6156a1c9My CRTC Appearance on Bill C-11: Why Isn't the Commission Concerned with Competition, Consumer Choice, and Affordability? * Digital news revolution by George Kelly CC BY 2.0 https://flic.kr /p/6fgK1UThe Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 187: Jeff Elgie on What the Bill C-18 Deal With Google Means for the Future of the Canadian News Sector * Vintage newspaper dispenser by Markus Spiske CC-CC0 1.0 https:// www.rawpixel.com/image/432264Skillful Negotiation or Legislative Fail? Taking Stock of the Bill C-18 Deal With Google Recent Talks * x * x Open Books Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era (University of Ottawa Press, 2015) The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law (University of Ottawa Press, 2013) From "Radical Extremism" to "Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (Irwin Law, 2010) In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law (Irwin Law, 2005) . Michael Geist on Substack Get Postings via Email Get new posts by email: [ ] Subscribe Broadcasting and Telecom Legislative Review Panel Report (BTLR) [Jump to... ] Archives December 2023 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 << Nov Michael Geist mgeist@uottawa.ca Creative Commons License This web site is licensed under a Creative Commons License, although certain works referenced herein may be separately licensed. counter statistics