pour un internet libre by g4ll4is https://flic.kr/p/cNtg63 (CC BY-SA 2.0)

pour un internet libre by g4ll4is https://flic.kr/p/cNtg63 (CC BY-SA 2.0)

News

Picking Up Where Bill C-10 Left Off: The Canadian Government’s Non-Consultation on Online Harms Legislation

The Canadian government released its plans yesterday for online harms legislation with a process billed as a consultation, but which is better characterized as an advisory notice, since there are few questions, options or apparent interest in hearing what Canadians think of the plans. Instead, the plans led by Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault pick up where Bill C-10 left off, treating freedom of expression as a danger to be constrained through regulations and the creation of a bureaucratic super-structure that includes a new Digital Safety Commission, digital tribunal to rule on content removal, and social media regulation advisory board. When combined with plans for a new data commissioner, privacy tribunal, and the expanded CRTC under Bill C-10, the sheer amount of new Internet governance is dizzying.

While there is clearly a need to address online harms and to ensure that Internet companies are transparent in their policies, consistent in applying those policies, and compliant with their legal obligations, this proposed legislation goes far beyond those principles. The government has indicated that these rules apply only to Internet services (dubbed Online Communications Services or OCSs), citing Facebook, Youtube, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter as examples. It notes that there will be an exception for private communications and telecommunications such as wireless companies, Skype and WhatsApp (along with products and services such as TripAdvisor that are not OCSs). Yet during a briefing with stakeholders, officials were asked why the law shouldn’t be extended to private communications on platforms as well, noting that these harms may occur on private messaging. Given that the government previously provided assurances of the exclusion of user generated content in Bill C-10 only to backtrack and make it subject to CRTC regulation, the risk that it could once again remove safeguards for basic speech is very real.

The perspective on OCSs is clear from the very outset. After a single perfunctory statement on the benefits of OCSs which says little about the benefits of freedom of expression – the document does not include a single mention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or net neutrality – the government proceeds to outline a series of harms, including spreading hateful content, propaganda, violence, sexual exploitation of children, and non-consensual distribution of intimate images. The proposed legislation would seek to address these forms of harmful content through a myriad of takedown requirements, content filtering, complaints mechanisms, and even website blocking.

How does the government intend to address these harms?

The general obligations would include requiring OCSs to implement measures to identify harmful content and to respond to any content flagged by any user within 24 hours. The OCSs would be required to either identify the content as harmful and remove it or respond by concluding that it is not harmful. The OCSs can seek assistance from the new Digital Safety Commissioner on content moderation issues. The proposed legislation would then incorporate a wide range of reporting requirements, some of which would be subject to confidentiality restrictions, so the companies would be precluded from notifying affected individuals.

The government envisions pro-active monitoring and reporting requirements that could have significant implications. For example, it calls for pro-active content monitoring of the five harms, granting the Digital Safety Commissioner the power to assess whether the AI tools used are sufficient. Moreover, the OCSs would face mandatory reporting requirements of users to law enforcement, leading to the prospect of an AI identifying what it thinks is content caught by the law and generating a report to the RCMP. This represents a huge increase in private enforcement and the possibility of Canadians garnering police records over posts that a machine thought was captured by the law.

In order to enforce these rules, the public could file complaints with the Digital Safety Commissioner. The new commissioner would be empowered to hold hearings on any issue, including non-compliance or anything that the Commissioner believes is in the public interest. The Digital Safety Commissioner would have broad powers to order the OCSs “to do any act or thing, or refrain from doing anything necessary to ensure compliance with any obligations imposed on the OCSP by or under the Act within the time specified in the order.” Moreover, there would also be able to conduct inspections of companies at any time:

“The Act should provide that the Digital Safety Commissioner may conduct inspections of OCSPs at any time, on either a routine or ad hoc basis, further to complaints, evidence of non-compliance, or at the Digital Safety Commissioner’s own discretion, for the OCSP’s compliance with the Act, regulations, decisions and orders related to a regulated OCS.”

In fact, the inspection power extends to anyone, not just OCSs, if there are reasonable grounds that there may be information related to software, algorithms, or anything else relevant to an investigation.

The proposed legislation includes administrative and monetary penalties for non-compliance, including failure to block or remove content. These penalties can run as high as three percent of global revenue or $10 million. If there is a failure to abide by a compliance agreement, the AMPs can run to $25 million or five percent of global revenues. The AMPs would be referred to the new privacy tribunal for review. Given that liability for non-compliance could run into the millions, companies will err on the side of taking down content even it there are doubts that it qualifies as harmful.

If the OCS still doesn’t comply with the order to remove certain content, the proposed legislation introduces the possibility of website blocking with orders that all Canadian ISPs block access to the online communications service. The implications of these provisions are enormous, raising the likelihood of creating a country-wide blocking infrastructure within all ISPs with the costs passed on to consumers in the form of higher Internet and wireless bills. Moreover, the proposal is the answer to those who may argue that Canada does not have the power to compel this level of content blocking on foreign services as the government says it will simply order those services blocked from the country if they fail to abide by Canadian content takedown requirements.

Where a company declines to take down content, the public can also file complaints with the new Digital Recourse Council of Canada. This regulatory body would have the power to rule that content be taken down. Hearings can be conducted in secret under certain circumstances. Layered on top of these two bodies is a Digital Safety Commission, which provides support to the Commissioner and the complaints tribunal.

Who pays for all this?

The Internet companies of course. The proposed legislation will create new regulatory charges for OCSs doing business in Canada to cover the costs of the regulatory structure as the companies will pay for the Digital Safety Commissioner, the Digital Recourse tribunal, and the Digital Commission. As part of the payment requirements, the Digital Safety Commissioner can demand financial disclosures from OCSs to determine ability to pay and Canadian revenues.

Far from constituting a made-in-Canada approach, the government has patched together some of the worst from around the world: 24 hour takedown requirements that will afford little in the way of due process and will lead to over-broad content removals on even questionable claims, website blocking of Internet platforms that won’t abide by its content takedown requirements, a regulatory super-structure with massive penalties and inspection powers, hearings that may take place in secret in some instances, and regulatory charges that may result in less choice for consumers as services block the Canadian market. Meanwhile, core principles such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or net neutrality do not receive a single mention.

The government says it is taking comments until September 25th, but given the framing of the documents, it is clear that this is little more than a notification of the regulatory plans, not a genuine effort to craft solutions based on public feedback. For a government that was elected with a strong grounding in consultation and freedom of expression, the reversal in approach could hardly be more obvious.

47 Comments

  1. shut up says govt of canada …to you all…or else

  2. Arie Intveld says:

    Alrighty then. Since EVERY online post by Liberal cabinet members is offensive, race-baiting, divisive vitriol, I expect to never see another tweet from any of them. Leap gut-first onto your own sword ….

    “Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.” ~ Dostoievski

    “There are only two ways of telling the complete truth – anonymously and posthumously.” ~ Thomas Sowell

  3. Pingback: White creeper van coming for your kids, British law and rights just not a thing anymore: Links 1, July 30, 2021 – Vlad Tepes

  4. Pingback: Links 31/7/2021: KDE Progress and Activision Catastrophe | Techrights

  5. chas white says:

    this bill is an assault on canadians freedom. It can never pass.

    • i am not hitler says:

      its an assualt on your mind thinking you could say something relevant but would rather not risk it for fear of the govt ….

      i will never fear govt and will speak my mind

      when i get as much time a a dope dealer for speaking i will ask , “just whom won world war 2?”

  6. So the government’s plan is to outsource enforcement of internet laws to foreign companies that it has called immoral.

  7. John dough says:

    Can’t have adults decide what they say,hear and do.
    Surely these adults can’t filter/turn off/don’t listen/etc and decide by themselves, goverment must step in.
    And for the love of everything, think of the children.

    Can’t be pro free speech/free expression/etc or you’ll be automatically labeled as racist,terrorist and who knows what else.

    This seems too much russia-esque or china-esque. Canada must be taking notes from them and spinning it as “but we’re the good guys, it’s good for you”

  8. Too much power once again in the hands of people not qualified to wield it. We’re to blame, but we’ll never do anything to solve it because it requires too much involvement…we can barely get through 1 minute TikTok videos without losing focus, let alone better analyze and take an interest in the political process to elect competent representation that actually works for us instead of themselves.

    • Arie Intveld says:

      Hard times create strong men,
      Strong men create easy times,
      Easy times create weak men,
      Weak men create hard times.

      We are currently in the fourth situation.

      In order to reach the first situation, we must be vociferously defiant against this incremental descent into life-sucking, micro-managed dystopia.

      For whom you vote won’t matter one jot. Now is the time to release your “William Wallace” mindset (figuratively) …

  9. Pingback: Canadian Government Readies Its Next Internet Crackdown With Online Harms Paper

  10. Cool post

  11. Illegal Comment says:

    The Liberal government is hiding behind the comfortable euphemism “Regulation”. Normally that’s for companies, but instead they will regulate what you can say and read and think. They want to regulate you.

    It’s an interesting end-run around our right to freedom of expression. Don’t censor, but “regulate” our communication through any medium or carrier or company involved. Force them to report you for thoughtcrime. Create a Regulation Police to watch everything you do, and let them secretly inspect your workplace and even home to ensure you are properly regulated. Don’t ban a book, but ban it from being created or possessed or transmitted by libraries/printers/stores/photographers/theatres, and force them report anyone who may read the book. If anyone persists, have the Book Safety Commissioner financially destroy everyone involved. There are some very dangerous books.

    Fine. Pass this legislation. If we allow ourselves to be ‘regulated’, then we deserve it. Any service that can be regulated in this way should go bankrupt.

  12. Lee Cipolla says:

    Communist China are at the controls in this country. That has NEVER been clearer!

    • Keith McClary says:

      When China does it, our govt/media call it The Great Firewall of China.

      We will need a cute name for the Canadian version.

  13. Pingback: Court rules widows not allowed to double-dip on pensions - BankNewsNow the complete banking & finance career source

  14. Pingback: Court rules widows not allowed to double-dip on pensions - Today Market News

  15. Pingback: Liberals’ ‘Online Harms’ Proposal Alarms Free Speech Advocates – The Daily Churner

  16. Pingback: Liberals’ ‘Online Harms’ Proposal Alarms Free Speech Advocates – Million Voices USA

  17. Pingback: Opinion: My Response to the Online Harms "Consultation" - Freezenet.ca

  18. Pingback: O (no!) Canada: Fast-moving Proposal Creates Filtering, Blocking and Reporting Rules—And Speech Police to Enforce Them - United Push Back

  19. Pingback: O (no!) Canada: Fast-moving Proposal Creates Filtering, Blocking and Reporting Rules—And Speech Police to Enforce Them

  20. Pingback: O (no!) Canada: Fast-moving proposal creates filtering, blocking and reporting rules—and speech police to enforce them – Changing World News

  21. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle - sourceitright

  22. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle – Techno News Hub

  23. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle | Technology For You

  24. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle – AJ Post

  25. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle – Voice Press

  26. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle | ZDNet - News Azi

  27. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle - Techy Rack

  28. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle | ZDNet | Gadgets Monster

  29. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle - Global Circulate

  30. Pingback: Apple is bringing client-side scanning mainstream and the genie is out of the bottle – ZDNet – Your best offers

  31. Pingback: The Niagara Independent

  32. Pingback: Apple généralise l'analyse côté client et ouvre la boîte de Pandore | Ultimatepocket

  33. Pingback: Apple généralise l'analyse côté client et ouvre la boîte de Pandore - Nogae Conseil

  34. Pingback: NP View: Justin Trudeau Liberals pose a direct threat to free speech in Canada - Nzuchi Times National News

  35. Pingback: NP View: Justin Trudeau Liberals Pose A Direct Threat To Free Speech In Canada » UnknowThing

  36. Pingback: NP View: Justin Trudeau Liberals pose a direct threat to free speech in Canada - The Evepost National News

  37. Pingback: #AxisOfEasy 212: Instagram Is Toxic To Teenage Girls And Facebook Knew It « AxisOfEasy

  38. Chandrahas Jog says:

    What is your take on a employer sponsored Artificial intelligence platform cognitive assessment at workplace. This is performed by an Occupational Therapist. Who is allowed to perform controlled act of evaluation but breaches Occupational Therapy act and RHPA BECASE: Absence of therapeutic relationship to employee, no physician referral but HR referral and inability to demonstrate that there was a serious disorder to warrant the intervention.

  39. Pingback: Des groupes antiracistes s’inquiètent du projet de loi canadien sur les «contenus préjudiciables en ligne», qui pourrait faire plus de mal que de bien – Voix juives indépendantes Canada

  40. Pingback: Anti-Racist Groups Concerned Canada’s Proposed “Online Harms” Legislation Could Do More Harm Than Good – Independent Jewish Voices Canada

  41. Pingback: Anti-Racist Groups Concerned Canada’s Proposed “Online Harms” Legislation Could Do More Harm Than Good - Just Peace Advocates

  42. Pingback: Does the Canadian Online Harms Proposal Increase Privacy Risks? – IP Osgoode

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*