A couple months ago, I reminded readers that I generally don’t like technology specific legislation.

With reference to the concerns about online harms, I wrote “it is reasonable to expect that content that is considered illegal in print media should continue to be considered illegal in digital form.”

A recent article from ITIF discusses explicit AI-generated images. The sharing of non-consensual intimate deep-fakes of Taylor Swift is sparking calls for new legislation to deal with images generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

ITIF argues that the heart of the issue predates AI, and indeed can be traced to before the internet era. The underlying issue in this instance is image-based abuse – sharing (or threatening to share), nude or sexual images about another person without consent. Consider Playboy’s publication of Marilyn Monroe nudes, or Hustler publishing Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

What has changed in the internet age is ease of becoming a global distributor. AI has simplified ‘photo-shop’ processing to generate fake images (and videos) with relative ease.

The root problem, independent of technology, is non-consensual sharing of intimate images, which is treated inconsistently by various jurisdictions within the United States.

In Canada, Section 162.1 of the Criminal Code deals with this.

162.1 (1) Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty

1. of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
2. of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

An article last week by former CRTC vice-chair Peter Menzies suggests that a tweak to that Section may provide greater clarity to the phrase “person depicted” in the Criminal Code.

ITIF notes, “Unfortunately, given widespread fears about AI and backlash against the tech industry, some critics are quick to point the finger at AI.” It is important to note that usage policies for OpenAI (the group behind ChatGPT) already prohibits “Impersonating another individual or organization without consent or legal right” and “Sexually explicit or suggestive content.”

ITIF argues “unless policymakers ban generative AI entirely, the underlying technology — which is publicly available to run on a personal computer — will always be around for bad actors to misuse.” Google and Meta have created tools for users to report unauthorized intimate images.

ITIF suggests that those who distribute nonconsensual intimate images should face significant civil and criminal liability, but these should not be based on technology-specific legislation targeting AI. Legislative solutions need to focus on stopping perpetrators of revenge porn, independent of the technology used for generating or distributing it.

This past Thursday, the FCC adopted a Declaratory Ruling [pdf, 155 KB] that makes it illegal to use voice cloning technology in robocall scams targeting consumers. As the FCC notes, State Attorneys General can already target the outcome of an unwanted AI-voice generated robocall. The scam or fraud can be prosecuted. The major change from the FCC last week makes the act of placing a robocall with an AI-generated voice illegal without having to go after the scam. The FCC’s ruling expands “the legal avenues through which state law enforcement agencies can hold these perpetrators accountable under the law.”

Last month, fake robocalls encouraged voters to skip participating in the New Hampshire primary.

Technology specific legislation for AI? Your thoughts are welcomed.

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):

1. 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;
2. to issue notices to persons who communicate false statements that constitute offences under this Act, to stop the communication of such statements;
3. to issue directives to persons who communicate prohibited statements under this Act, to stop the communication of any such statements;
4. 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;
5. 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,
6. 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?

Will lower cost connections get more people online?

That is the objective of a number of initiatives being offered by telecom companies across the country. Programs provide devices and services to disadvantaged individuals and families.

Long time readers of this blog will recall that Rogers launched its Connected for Success internet program, the first-of-its-kind program in Canada in 2013 in Toronto. The company expanded the program to subsidized tenants and members of housing partners across the Rogers internet footprint in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. In 2021, Rogers added new speed options and TV bundles to meet customers’ evolving needs and expanded eligibility to make the program available to more low-income Canadians. Over the past year, the program expanded across Western Canada and Northern Ontario; a new national Connected for Success wireless 5G program was launched.

Rogers offers an array of services branded under Connected for Success. According to Rogers, Connected for Success is available for over 2.5 million eligible recipients of Provincial income support, Provincial disability benefits, Rent-geared-to-income tenants of a non-profit housing partner organization, Seniors receiving the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement, or the Resettlement Assistance Program. In addition, households receiving the Maximum Canada Child Benefit and Maximum Guaranteed Income Supplement are eligible through the federal Connecting Families program described below.

• Rogers Connected for Success 5G mobile plan features: Access to 5G/5G+ network; 3GB (at speeds up to 256 Mbps). Data at reduced speeds thereafter;
  Unlimited Canada-wide talk and text; Unlimited international texting and picture/video messaging from Canada; U.S. & International Preferred Rate included; Call Display with Name Display; Voicemail; Call Waiting and group calling; Access to Roam Like Home; 2,500 Call Forwarding Minutes; and, Spam Call Detect. Customers can also get a no-cost 5G smartphone with financing as long as they keep this mobile plan for 24 months. (Customers can bring their own 5G-enabled device if preferred.)

TELUS offers a portfolio of services branded under“Connecting For Good”:

• Mobility for Good: Mobility for Good for youth provides a free smartphone and plan to youth aging out of foster care, helping them successfully transition to independence. Mobility for Good for seniors provides access to a discounted smartphone and low-cost mobility rate plan for Canadian seniors receiving a Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) amount of $6,500 or more annually, ensuring that they stay connected to loved ones and can access important resources and information.
• Internet for Good: TELUS Internet for Good offers low-cost, high-speed Internet to qualified low-income families and seniors, youth aging out of care and people with disabilities in need.
• Tech for Good: Available nationwide, Tech for Good helps improve quality of life, independence and personal empowerment of people with disabilities by offering customized recommendations and training on assistive technology for mobile devices, computers and laptops.
• Health for Good: TELUS Health for Good initiatives like mobile health clinics and free or low-cost access to TELUS Health MyCare™ counselling and TELUS Health Medical Alert services make healthcare more accessible for marginalized individuals who often face significant barriers accessing quality health care.

Nationally, lower cost connections are available to eligible low income households, branded under the federal government’s Connecting Families Initiative. This program is overseen by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED). The costs are covered by various Internet Service Providers across Canada.

There are 2 plans offered under Connecting Families.

• Plan 1: $10 per month which includes: Up to 10 Mbps download speed; 1 Mbps upload speed; 100 GB of data.
• Plan 2: $20 per month which includes: Up to 50 Mbps download speed; 10 Mbps upload speed; 200 GB of data.

There are Connecting Families service providers nearly everywhere in Canada: Access Communications Co-operative; Beanfield Technologies; Bell Canada (including Bell Aliant and Bell MTS); Cogeco; Coopérative de câblodistribution de l’arrière-pays (CCAP); Hay Communications; Mornington; NorthwestTel; Novus Entertainment; Quadro; Rogers; Rural Net; SaskTel; Tbaytel; TELUS; Vidéotron; and, Westman Media Cooperative.

There are still too many Canadians who aren’t online despite all of these options for lower cost connections for internet and mobile services and devices. As we have discussed before, there are non-price factors inhibiting people from connecting to broadband services.

Alberta recently launched a free digital literacy training program, available in English and French, with 19 courses divided between Basic and Intermediate streams. I’ll have more about this in the coming weeks.

What more do we need to do to get more people online?

Do people have a BS blindspot? How many people think they are better at detecting misinformation than in reality?

Canadian psychologists, Shane Littrell (University of Toronto) and Jonathan Fugelsang (University of Waterloo) have been examining misinformation for a number of years. Last year, their paper in Thinking and Reasoning revealed a somewhat dangerous paradox. It seems the more confident we are in being able to distinguish between truth and misinformation, the more likely we are to be susceptible to false information: what they call the BS blindspot. Not only do the people worst at detecting misinformation think their abilities exceed reality, they also think they are better than most.

As I have been writing over the past few months (December’s “Creating more sophisticated content consumers”, and January’s “Dealing With disinformation”), we need to understand how to counter misinformation.

Littrell and Fuselsang have a new study released in Applied Cognitive Psychology [pdf, 4 MB] found “that asking people to reflect on why they find certain statements meaningful helps reduce receptivity to some types of misinformation but not others.”

It seems that much depends on the source of the information. The researchers found that claims from perceived experts can be largely immune to the kinds of interventions relying on reflective thinking.

In Illuminating human bias and our ability to be misled, Waterloo quotes Professor Fugelsang endorsing a long-term digital literacy strategy. “We need to teach misinformation awareness, healthy skepticism and encouraging reflective thinking early on in life — as early as elementary school.”

Is reflection the best medicine to treat an epidemic of misinformation? It depends. But, Littrell and Fugelsang suggest a reflective pause for anyone encountering information related to health, finance or politics, especially online.

We need to become more sophisticated consumers of content and information, to see past the BS blindspot. It needs to be considered a key component of improving our overall digital literacy.

Are today’s home connections approaching fast enough for broadband? That was the subject of a late November post of mine in the context of an FCC review of the US broadband standard. In 2020, I wrote a similarly entitled post, challenging the myth that universal fibre should be on national agendas.

According to Deloitte’s 2024 TMT Predictions, “In some parts of the world, some consumers may have all the bandwidth they need in 2024.”

Deloitte predicts the most commonly used applications (audio and video streaming, video calling, gaming, and home security) will not see any increase in the recommended bitrates. Indeed, Deloitte suggests that some applications may loosen bitrate requirements thanks to improvements in compression technologies.

The implication is that consumers may be reaching a ceiling for the speed of their residential broadband connections.

For 40 years, those of us who were online at home sought faster connections. I remember dialling into Bell Labs with my Hayes 1200 modem. I marvelled as my AT&T Unix PC painted the green screen so much faster than my old 300 baud acoustic coupler.

Deloitte predicts that consumers may focus less on headline broadband speeds and look more at factors such as reliability, bundles, indoor networks, or just plain value.

That said, consumer demand for higher speeds is only part of what drives network infrastructure needs for broadband providers. Globally, there are governmental incentive programs and regulatory requirements aimed at eliminating the digital divide with minimum speed requirements. These range from as little as 10 megabits per second (Mbps) to 1 gigabit per second download speeds, so providers should build networks with these speeds to receive funds or comply with mandates. Next, there are competitive pressures in the market: If one provider is advertising ultrafast speeds, others may need to match or at least come close. Further, building network infrastructure is often an investment with a 20 year plus horizon, so there is an element of futureproofing.

Still, Deloitte observes that the technologies being deployed today are “more reliable, more sustainable, easier to provision, cheaper to operate, and have lower latency.” As such, carriers will continue to deploy fiber to the home and DOCSIS 4, upgrading existing facilities and expanding to unserved areas.

So are we approaching fast enough for broadband yet? Deloitte says that 100 Mbps is more than enough for a household with 2 people; the firm suggests that fewer than 1% of households in most markets might need over 300 Mbps.

By the end of 2022, CRTC data says 93% of Canadians (including 67% of rural Canadians) had access to 50/10 Mbps speeds with unlimited downloads. 87% of Canadians have access to 100 Mbps service (at year end 2021, the latest published data point). On a weighted average basis, the CRTC says Canadians subscribe to 331 Mbps (2022).

Does that mean the need for investment is complete? Hardly. There’s more work needed to upgrade certain areas, and to extend networks to unserved communities.

To what extent will consumers look at factors beyond headline speeds when buying broadband services?