Could government online safety legislation make it less safe to be online?
The mandate letter for Canada’s Minister of Canadian Heritage includes a section calling for online safety legislation. The challenge is how to do this within a democratic framework. The Heritage website says:
The Government of Canada is committed to putting in place a transparent and accountable regulatory framework for online safety in Canada. Now, more than ever, online services must be held responsible for addressing harmful content on their platforms and creating a safe online space that protects all Canadians.
There is a lot captured in those two sentences.
It sounds good if you say it quickly, but challenges arise when you pause to think about each clause. Putting in place a transparent and accountable regulatory framework? Holding online services responsible for the harmful content on their platforms? Holding the services responsible for creating safe online spaces?
Sri Lanka recently passed an Online Safety Bill [pdf, 130 KB] that has created concerns among civil liberties groups and the US government.
The Sri Lanka bill creates a 5-person Online Safety Commission with the powers and functions (among others):
- to issue directives to persons, service providers or internet intermediaries, who have published or communicated or whose service has been used to communicate any prohibited statement, requiring them to provide to persons who have been adversely affected by any prohibited statement, an opportunity of responding to such prohibited statement;
- to issue notices to persons who communicate false statements that constitute offences under this Act, to stop the communication of such statements;
- to issue directives to persons who communicate prohibited statements under this Act, to stop the communication of any such statements;
- to issue notices to any internet access service providers or internet intermediary to disable access to an online location which contains a prohibited statement by the end users in Sri Lanka or to remove such prohibited statement from such online location;
- to refer to the appropriate court for its consideration any communications that may be in contempt of court or prejudicial to the maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary, and to provide such assistance as may be required from any court in respect of any matter so referred to such court; and,
- to make recommendations to service providers, internet intermediaries and internet access service providers to remove prohibited statements.
Canadians should be concerned about government over reach on freedoms of expression. [A veteran Member of Parliament introduced a private members bill this past Monday that limits “promotion” of fossil fuels.]
Canada held a public consultation in 2021. At the time, the summary observed that “respondents signaled the need to proceed with caution.”
Writing about the UK’s Online Safety Bill last April, the post explored whether government regulations might actually make it less safe to be online. Concerns with the UK bill included censorship powers over digital speech and content, and the creation of backdoors into encryption systems, which could then be exploited by malevolent actors.
The editor of Telecoms.com observed “Given the degree of technological and ethical illiteracy shown in the drafting of this bill and its passage through the House of Commons, there seems little hope that the Lords will understand what’s at stake.” Ottawa observers might ascribe similar levels of illiteracy to Canadian parliamentarians.
The UK Bill received Royal Assent late last year. Ofcom, the UK communications regulator, has started establishing regulations to enforce the new bill.
As Canada’s government resumes, will it move forward with online safety legislation? Do Canadians have sufficient trust in our government institutions to agree with moving forward?