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
Tags: c-22 / c-58 / child pornography / internet service providers / ISP
Share this post
Episode 168: Privacy Commissioner of Canada Philippe Dufresne on How to Fix Bill C-27
May 29, 2023
May 15, 2023
May 1, 2023
Episode 164: Teresa Scassa on the Latest Canadian Court Ruling on Facebook and What It Might Mean for Privacy Reform
April 24, 2023
Search Results placeholder
- Meta to Test Blocking News Sharing on Facebook and Instagram in Canada in Response to Bill C-18’s Mandated Payments for Links
- Globe Publisher Calls Bill C-18 a “Threat to the Independence of Media” As Government Senate Representative Smears Bill Critics
- Extend the Deadline: My Submission to the CRTC on its Deeply Flawed Bill C-11 Consultations
- The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 168: Privacy Commissioner of Canada Philippe Dufresne on How to Fix Bill C-27
- CRTC Chair Vicky Eatrides Faces Her First Big Test: Is the Commission Serious About Public Participation on Bill C-11?
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) .
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.