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
One Comment
Recent Posts
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal” 
Bill C-22’s Groundhog Day: Why the Government’s Dismissal of Signal, Apple and the U.S. Congress Concerns Runs Back the Disastrous Online News Act Playbook 
Slick Videos Won’t Save Lawful Access: Why The Government’s Bill C-22 Defence Avoids the Charter, Privacy and Security Concerns Raised By Critics 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots 
U.S. Congressional Leaders Warn Canadian Lawful Access Plans Harm U.S. National Security and Economic Interests
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.