lives and works in Canada, to remove the offending materials.
13
In August 2006 the Canadian human rights
lawyer Richard Warman filed an application with
the CRTC to authorize Canadian ISPs to block
access to two hate speech sites hosted outside
of Canada. 14 The CRTC denied the application,
but the decision recognized that, although the
CRTC cannot require Canadian ISP’s to block
content it, can authorize them to do. However, the
CRTC noted that the “scope of this power has yet
to be explored.” 15
In November 2006 Canada’s largest ISPs
launched Project Cleanfeed Canada in partnership with www.cybertip.ca, the nation’s child sexual exploitation tipline. The project, modeled after
a similar initiative in the United Kingdom, is
intended to protect ISP customers “from inadvertently visiting foreign web sites that contain
images of children being sexually abused and
that are beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian legal
authorities.” 16 Acting on complaints from
Canadians about images found online,
www.cybertip.ca analysts assess the reported
information and forward potentially illegal material to the appropriate foreign jurisdiction. If a URL
is approved for blocking by two analysts, it may
be added to the Cleanfeed Canada distribution
list. Each of the participating ISPs voluntarily
blocks this list without knowledge of the sites it
contains, precluding ISP involvement in the evaluation of URLs. Blocked sites fail to load, but
attempts to access them are not monitored and
users are not tracked. 17
Since Cleanfeed Canada is a voluntary program, the blocking mechanism is up to the discretion of the ISPs. Sasktel, Bell Canada, and
Telus all claim to block only specific URLs, not IP
addresses, in an attempt to avoid overblocking. 18
Besides the significant public outcry that would
most likely result, overblocking may itself be illegal under the Telecommunications Act mentioned above.
Because accessing child pornography—as
well as making it accessible—is unlawful in
Canada, the filtering of such content does not
infringe on rights of access or speech afforded
by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Moreover, because ISP participation
in Project Cleanfeed is voluntary, the blocking of
sites through the project cannot be said to be
state sponsored. However, the project remains
controversial for other reasons. First, Cleanfeed
Canada has not yet sought or received authorization from the CRTC. Second, the blacklist
maintained by www.cybertip.ca remains secret,
though necessarily, as publishing a “directory” of
child pornography would itself be illegal. This
lack of transparency inevitably generates distrust
of the list and the process by which it is compiled. Third, the procedure for appealing the
blocking of a site may have implications for
anonymity. 19 A content owner or ISP customer
may complain to the ISP or directly to www.cyber
tip.ca, which will reassess the site and, if necessary, obtain an independent and binding judgment from the National Child Exploitation
Coordination Centre. It is unclear whether
this process might expose the complainant’s
identity and create the potential for abuse of that
individual’s rights by the ISP or perhaps even by
authorities.
Canada’s response to online obscenity and
its collaborative filtering initiative look restrained
by contrast to the more vigorous regulatory
efforts of the United States.
The United States Congress passed the
Communications Decency Act (CDA) as part of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Signed into
law by President Clinton in February 1996, the
CDA criminalized the transmission of “indecent”
material to persons under eighteen and the display to minors of “patently offensive” content and
communications. 20 The CDA took aim at both the
speakers and service providers of indecent
material, although it offered them each safe
228
Regional Overviews
13
In August 2006 the Canadian human rights
lawyer Richard Warman filed an application with
the CRTC to authorize Canadian ISPs to block
access to two hate speech sites hosted outside
of Canada. 14 The CRTC denied the application,
but the decision recognized that, although the
CRTC cannot require Canadian ISP’s to block
content it, can authorize them to do. However, the
CRTC noted that the “scope of this power has yet
to be explored.” 15
In November 2006 Canada’s largest ISPs
launched Project Cleanfeed Canada in partnership with www.cybertip.ca, the nation’s child sexual exploitation tipline. The project, modeled after
a similar initiative in the United Kingdom, is
intended to protect ISP customers “from inadvertently visiting foreign web sites that contain
images of children being sexually abused and
that are beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian legal
authorities.” 16 Acting on complaints from
Canadians about images found online,
www.cybertip.ca analysts assess the reported
information and forward potentially illegal material to the appropriate foreign jurisdiction. If a URL
is approved for blocking by two analysts, it may
be added to the Cleanfeed Canada distribution
list. Each of the participating ISPs voluntarily
blocks this list without knowledge of the sites it
contains, precluding ISP involvement in the evaluation of URLs. Blocked sites fail to load, but
attempts to access them are not monitored and
users are not tracked. 17
Since Cleanfeed Canada is a voluntary program, the blocking mechanism is up to the discretion of the ISPs. Sasktel, Bell Canada, and
Telus all claim to block only specific URLs, not IP
addresses, in an attempt to avoid overblocking. 18
Besides the significant public outcry that would
most likely result, overblocking may itself be illegal under the Telecommunications Act mentioned above.
Because accessing child pornography—as
well as making it accessible—is unlawful in
Canada, the filtering of such content does not
infringe on rights of access or speech afforded
by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Moreover, because ISP participation
in Project Cleanfeed is voluntary, the blocking of
sites through the project cannot be said to be
state sponsored. However, the project remains
controversial for other reasons. First, Cleanfeed
Canada has not yet sought or received authorization from the CRTC. Second, the blacklist
maintained by www.cybertip.ca remains secret,
though necessarily, as publishing a “directory” of
child pornography would itself be illegal. This
lack of transparency inevitably generates distrust
of the list and the process by which it is compiled. Third, the procedure for appealing the
blocking of a site may have implications for
anonymity. 19 A content owner or ISP customer
may complain to the ISP or directly to www.cyber
tip.ca, which will reassess the site and, if necessary, obtain an independent and binding judgment from the National Child Exploitation
Coordination Centre. It is unclear whether
this process might expose the complainant’s
identity and create the potential for abuse of that
individual’s rights by the ISP or perhaps even by
authorities.
Canada’s response to online obscenity and
its collaborative filtering initiative look restrained
by contrast to the more vigorous regulatory
efforts of the United States.
The United States Congress passed the
Communications Decency Act (CDA) as part of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Signed into
law by President Clinton in February 1996, the
CDA criminalized the transmission of “indecent”
material to persons under eighteen and the display to minors of “patently offensive” content and
communications. 20 The CDA took aim at both the
speakers and service providers of indecent
material, although it offered them each safe
228
Regional Overviews