The Government has reintroduced a bill designed to require providers of Internet services to report incidents of child pornography. The bill was introduced as Bill C-58 last year. I discussed the bill here. The new bill is Bill C-22.
Government Reintroduces ISP Child Pornography Reporting Bill
May 7, 2010
Share this post
One Comment

Law Bytes
Episode 245: Kate Robertson on Bill C-2’s Cross-Border Data Sharing Privacy Risks
byMichael Geist

October 6, 2025
Michael Geist
September 22, 2025
Michael Geist
September 15, 2025
Michael Geist
July 28, 2025
Michael Geist
July 21, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Senate Bill Would Grant Government Regulatory Power to Mandate Age Verification For Search, Social Media and AI Services Accompanied By Threat of Court Ordered Blocking of Lawful Content
Government Reverses on Bill C-2: Removes Lawful Access Warrantless Demand Powers in New Border Bill
Why The Recent TikTok Privacy Ruling Swaps Privacy for Increased Surveillance
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 245: Kate Robertson on Bill C-2’s Cross-Border Data Sharing Privacy Risks
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 244: Kris Klein on the Long Road to a Right to be Forgotten Under Canadian Privacy Law
INTERPRETATION
I’m a little curious about this.
It says a hosting service is liable. Would a blog owner be liable as well?
I know of one blog owner who was under constant spam attacked by various IP’s. The spammer(s) would fill his blog with links to child porn and other to try and discredit him.
What happens in this scenario?
What happens if he misses some of the spam and the link is visible?
What if he just deletes it? Is he guilty for not reporting it and will face fines?
If he is to report it, what do we do when the spam is in the hundreds? Spend 8 hrs a day to collect it all and report it? Have to have the evidence for 21 days on top of that or face fines?
Also, if a blog owner checks a link out to make sure it isn’t child porn then per that ACT it appears he is guilty of accessing child porn!
Also, what constitutes an investigation? Lets say the spammer hits a site, and one or two out of a hundred spams gets missed. Then the spammer who used a botnet (or whatever) makes a complaint under this bill. Now what? That blog owner is under secret investigation with all packets snooped to see what he does and says and to whom automatically without notice or oversight? Seems like a set-up to me.
That bill is very badly worded. It is also very scary the way it is worded.