19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. United Nations, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, 2000, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/
a49r210.htm.
23. Ronald J. Deibert, ‘‘Black Code: Censorship, Surveillance, and the Militarisation of Cyberspace,’’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32, no. 3 (2003): 501–530.
24. In 1999, Industry Canada commissioned a report to explore ‘‘from a technological perspective, issues arising from attempts to regulate content on the Internet and to control access by individuals to Internet sites and facilities.’’ The report analyzed the efforts by Singapore and China to
block access to Internet content for political reasons as part of a censorship strategy and explored
the possibility of introducing such technologies to block Canadians’ access to undesirable content
such as child pornography. The report focused on evaluating the effectiveness of filtering and concluded that filtering technologies are subject to underblocking (the inability to block all or most of
the content one intends to block), overblocking (the accidental blocking of content that was
never intended to be blocked), and circumvention (the ability to easily bypass the restrictions).
Concerning the implementation of filtering at the national level, the report concluded that filtering was unreliable and would have a ‘‘negative impact on Canada’s place in the global Information Economy.’’ Gerry Miller, Gerri Sinclair, David Sutherland, and Julie Zilber, ‘‘Regulation of
the Internet: A Technological Perspective’’ (commissioned by Industry Canada from EXCITE,
Simon Fraser University, 1999), http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/005082_e.pdf/
$FILE/005082_e.pdf.
25. World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, The Yokohama Global
Commitment, 2001, http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yokohama/Outcome_documents/
YOKOHAMA%20GLOBAL%20COMMITMENT%202001_EN.pdf.
26. World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, Child Pornography,
2001, http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yokohama/Background_reading/Theme_papers/
Theme%20paper%20Child%20Pornography.pdf.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. However, legislation such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which was passed
in 2000 in the United States, did require schools and libraries to implement filtering technology.
See Lisa M. Bowman, ‘‘Supreme Court Backs Library Net Filter,’’ CNET News.com, June 23, 2003,
http://www.news.com/Supreme-Court-backs-library-Net-filters/2100-1028_3-1019952.html.
68
Nart Villeneuve
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. United Nations, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, 2000, http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/
a49r210.htm.
23. Ronald J. Deibert, ‘‘Black Code: Censorship, Surveillance, and the Militarisation of Cyberspace,’’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32, no. 3 (2003): 501–530.
24. In 1999, Industry Canada commissioned a report to explore ‘‘from a technological perspective, issues arising from attempts to regulate content on the Internet and to control access by individuals to Internet sites and facilities.’’ The report analyzed the efforts by Singapore and China to
block access to Internet content for political reasons as part of a censorship strategy and explored
the possibility of introducing such technologies to block Canadians’ access to undesirable content
such as child pornography. The report focused on evaluating the effectiveness of filtering and concluded that filtering technologies are subject to underblocking (the inability to block all or most of
the content one intends to block), overblocking (the accidental blocking of content that was
never intended to be blocked), and circumvention (the ability to easily bypass the restrictions).
Concerning the implementation of filtering at the national level, the report concluded that filtering was unreliable and would have a ‘‘negative impact on Canada’s place in the global Information Economy.’’ Gerry Miller, Gerri Sinclair, David Sutherland, and Julie Zilber, ‘‘Regulation of
the Internet: A Technological Perspective’’ (commissioned by Industry Canada from EXCITE,
Simon Fraser University, 1999), http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/005082_e.pdf/
$FILE/005082_e.pdf.
25. World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, The Yokohama Global
Commitment, 2001, http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yokohama/Outcome_documents/
YOKOHAMA%20GLOBAL%20COMMITMENT%202001_EN.pdf.
26. World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, Child Pornography,
2001, http://www.csecworldcongress.org/PDF/en/Yokohama/Background_reading/Theme_papers/
Theme%20paper%20Child%20Pornography.pdf.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. However, legislation such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which was passed
in 2000 in the United States, did require schools and libraries to implement filtering technology.
See Lisa M. Bowman, ‘‘Supreme Court Backs Library Net Filter,’’ CNET News.com, June 23, 2003,
http://www.news.com/Supreme-Court-backs-library-Net-filters/2100-1028_3-1019952.html.
68
Nart Villeneuve