Something terrible is happening in Canadian Internet law, and the people who care in the rest of the world are mostly stretched too thin to pay attention. We’re counting on people like @mgeist, @EmilyLaidlaw, @tamir_i, and @vivekdotca to somehow fix it. 1/
@mgeist @EmilyLaidlaw @tamir_i @vivekdotca This is a thread listing some of the law’s problems as identified by @mgeist, and flagging a few resources showing the law’s major human rights problems. Others who know of more that might be useful for those working on this in Canada, please add on. 2/
Many of @mgeist's recent posts are about the rushed and secretive lawmaking process. This latest one lays out the current proposals. michaelgeist.ca/2021/07/online…
3/
3/
It's like a list of the worst ideas around the world -- the ones human rights groups like @edri, @article19org, @hrw, @accessnow and responsible tech orgs like @mozilla and @wikimediapolicy have been fighting in the EU, India, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, and elsewhere. 4/
First, it has 24-hour notice and takedown. That’s much worse than NetzDG in Germany. (Which gives platforms 7 days to more carefully assess speech that isn’t obviously illegal.) NetzDG got a ton of attention around the world. Canada is flying under the radar. 5/
We know that even under more lenient systems, platforms systematically err on the side of taking down lawful content in order to avoid risk to themselves. cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2021/02/e… 6/
Canada's proposed law would have penalties up to three percent of global revenue or $10 million. And 24-hour takedown requirements. That's a recipe for massive overcompliance, with major consequences for users' rights to seek and impart information. 7/
Second, the Canadian proposed law requires proactive monitoring – aka filtering – for five kinds of content, including hateful content, propaganda, and violent content. 8/
This is exactly the kind of filtering mandate that has had civil society and human rights advocates ringing alarm bells in Europe for several years. A much narrower proposal in the EU Terrorist Content Reg drew condemnation from UN human rights officials and more. 9/
Here's the UN human rights officials' objection letter: spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/…
(I think there may have been two of those.)
Here's a thread listing other objections to filtering *just* for terrorist content. The Canadian proposal is much, much broader.
(I think there may have been two of those.)
Here's a thread listing other objections to filtering *just* for terrorist content. The Canadian proposal is much, much broader.
https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/123597829990753075310/
Scholars and experts including @AlexandraQu, @JoanBarata, @hutko, @davidakaye, @DiaKayyali, @why0hy and many more have written about the dangers filtering raises -- not just for speech and info rights, but for rights against discrimination, rights to privacy, and more. 11/
Third, platforms must report users who *might* have violated the law to police. This kind of privatized dragnet surveillance of user speech is in Germany's new NetzDG law too. Google is challenging it there. reuters.com/technology/goo… 12/
I'm not an expert in that area of law, but I do live in the world. So I think I can spot an issue about who gets reported to the police, and how police treat them. 13/
We have every reason to expect people of color and other marginalized or vulnerable groups to get flagged more, reported to police more, and mistreated more after that happens. The problem can start with bias in AI or other filtering tools, like this: homes.cs.washington.edu/~msap/pdfs/sap… 14/
Bias in content moderation can also come from human moderators -- especially the ones being asked to make very rapid assessments. Here's a thread on that.
https://twitter.com/daphnehk/status/99459824738454733015/
The harms from platforms surveilling users and reporting them to police will also disproportionately hurt vulnerable groups like undocumented immigrants, parolees, or sex workers -- whether by getting them silenced, banned, and reported, or by causing self-censorship. 16/
The US has been coming to terms with this problem in its last platform law, SESTA/FOSTA -- to the point that Elizabeth Warren and other Members of Congress have called for a formal assessment of harms to sex workers. congress.gov/bill/116th-con… 17/
Amazing research and advocacy on this topic has been done by @KendraSerra, @MissLoreleiLee, @evan_greer and others. (See hackinghustling.org/wp-content/upl…) 18/
Fourth, the Canadian law would create a set of new regulatory bodies, tribunals, and a Commissioner who can order platforms to "do any act or thing... necessary to ensure compliance with any obligations imposed on [them] by or under the Act w/in the time spec'd in the order.” 19/
WOW. That is a sweeping power for a regulator to hold over online speech. I don't know Canadian Charter rights law, but that would be a blazing prior restraint problem in many countries, and likely under the Inter-Amer Convention on Human Rights (tho CA's not a signatory). 20/
Maybe I'll just tag some of the Inter American human rights official accounts, though, since this Canadian law goes so powerfully against reports they've been issuing for years. @CIDH @PVacaV 21/
@CIDH @PVacaV If anyone doubts that unscrupulous people can come to, and abuse, government powers like these... I invite them to look at the past five years in the United States. 22/
Fifth, the Canadian law provides for ISPs blocking sites that don't comply with the law. The last time the US tried to do this, in SOPA/PIPA, multiple UN and regional human rights officials wrote to object. perma.cc/8RVR-HQTJ 23/
In other parts of the world, law has been shifting to tolerate site-blocking in extreme cases, like where an entire site is dedicated to counterfeiting or piracy. But this seems to be about blocking entire sites that have lots of legal speech, and just some that's illegal. 24/
Comments on this proposal are due Sept. 25th. But @mgeist, who knows what's going on the ground, is pretty discouraged about whether the comments will make any difference. 25/
I hope some of these resources (or those in replies from others) can be useful to the people dealing with this on the ground in Canada. It's a sign of the craziness in Internet policy today that this law isn't getting huge international focus. Bonne chance, you guys. 26/26
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
