Tuesday, February 19, 2008

 

Legislation could impact your internet service

Parliament LogoMichael Geist points to a private member's bill introduced by Liberal MP Karen Redman last Thursday. Named the The Internet Child Pornography Prevention Act, the bill seeks to license all ISPs and have those ISPs adhere to some new guideines. In my view, it is well intentioned, but flawed.

The purpose of the bill is clear enough:
The purpose of this Act is to prevent the use of the Internet to unlawfully promote, display, describe or facilitate participation in unlawful sexual activity involving young persons.
The measures seek to place more responsibility onto internet service providers.

The bill introduces a CRTC licensing regime.
No person shall offer the services of, or operate as, an Internet service provider unless the person has been granted a licence to operate as an Internet service provider
This is not particularly onerous. We have all sorts of telecom service provider licensing and registrations today already. Those ISPs who are already providing voice services need to register already. The bill does not define what is an ISP. Does it refer to internet access providers, hosting companies, both?

This bill would allow the Commission to block previous offenders from operating an ISP, or being a director or officer of an ISP. Further, the bill would permit the Minister to order ISPs to block certain content found to be child pornography. The current legislation only allows the CRTC to authorize the blocking of content - a subtle but important distinction.

Among the biggest challenges are the requirements in section 5(1):
No Internet service provider shall knowingly permit the use of its service
  1. for placing child pornography on the Internet or for viewing, reading, copying or retrieving child pornography from the Internet;
  2. by any person who the provider knows has been convicted of an offence under this Act within the previous seven years; or
  3. by any person who the provider knows has used the Internet within the previous seven years for a purpose that would be an offence under this Act.
Other portions of the bill appear to be redundant with existing legislation, although the new bill uses conflicting language.

South of the border, last week Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass) introduced the Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Markey chairs the House Subcommittee on Telecommunication and the Internet, so his bill is more likely to generate active debate, especially since his bill is co-sponsored by Republican Chip Pickering.

There will be a session on Net Neutrality on Wednesday June 18 at The Canadian Telecom Summit.

Early bird rates end in less than two weeks on March 1. Book your place now!

Technorati Tags:
, ,

Comments:
Unless there is a pretty database of people who have been convicted of trafficing in child pornography, how is the ISP to control who they sell access to?
So now it's up to the ISPs to *determine* who they can/cannot sell internet service to? Shouldn't that decision be up to a criminal parole board? That smells a little like making ESSO or Petro Canada responsible for determining if the person they sell gasoline to has been convicted of drunk driving :-(
 
When I read all these child pornography stories, what I hear is the police don't have enough time or resources to deal with all the horrific cases out there. It's the common thread in all the stories.

And then the solutions get trotted out--block content! Make ISPs into the police! Make reporting of child pornography mandatory! Allow warrantless disclosure of information!

Sorry, but isn't he key solution ... give police the time and resources to deal with the problem? How is any of the rest of it going to help if we don't do that? If this is really a crisis for Canadians--and it seems to be--then shouldn't we be investing our tax dollars to solve it, rather than forcing private industry into inadequate solutions?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?