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
Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
byMichael Geist

Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
April 20, 2026
Michael Geist
March 30, 2026
Michael Geist
March 16, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
AI Without Canada: Why the Heritage Committee’s AI Report Could Lead to Less Canadian Content in the Training Data
Addressing the AI Policy Challenge: My Appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications
Lawful Access Heads to Committee: The Opposition Found Its Voice, the Government Never Found Its Defence
Is Data De-Identification Dead?: Why the AI Privacy Risk Isn’t What It Learns, But What It Figures Out
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 265: Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI

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.