Social Media Regulation, Link Taxes, Copyright Extension, And More: Canada’s Attack On The Internet Has Resumed

Copyright

from the oh-no,-canada dept

Last year, we wrote about the Canadian government’s efforts to push a bill regulating social media content like broadcast television and, soon after, their work on new “Online Harms” legislation that (among many provisions) would require platforms to report certain content to law enforcement and national intelligence services. These efforts and the government’s general approach to internet issues formed a pattern that led University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist to label it the most anti-internet government in Canadian history. Both efforts stalled out in the face of the 2021 election, but now the Liberal party government, having won re-election and secured a cooperation agreement with the competing New Democratic Party, is resuming and indeed expanding its push for new internet legislation.

As Geist outlines in a Twitter thread, there’s a lot going on. The Online Streaming Act is back as Bill C-11, promoted by the government with some misleading cartoons and predictably unclear and contradictory messaging. The most prominent concern with last year’s version of the Act was that it would open the door to regulating individual social media content creators (think streamers, YouTubers, podcasters, and more) in the same framework as large broadcasting and streaming companies. The new text appears to close this door, with language that exempts such users, but the government’s claim that this means the Act would not apply to them at all is incorrect, as their content could be easily subject to regulation. This is because there are exceptions and exceptions to exceptions about what the Act covers, partly based on the question of whether content is “commercial” which, as we’ve discussed for years, is not so simple a delineation. However you slice it, individual Canadians who create content online are certainly at risk of facing obligations under the act.

Despite this, one Member of Parliament dismissed all such concerns as “YouTube talking points”, while another claimed that the government’s official policy direction to the broadcast regulator, which will not be made public until after the bill becomes law, would assuage any and all concerns on this matter and others. Obviously this isn’t very reassuring, and it contradicts the government’s claims that the text of the bill itself already precludes these problems. As was the case last year, inconsistency abounds.

There will be more to say about Bill C-11 as it works its way through committee, but for now we must move on, because it’s just one piece of the puzzle. As we recently covered, the government has also introduced a bill that would force tech platforms to pay news outlets for linking to their coverage. As we noted, this has been tried several times around the world for years, and it has never worked out — at best (or worst, depending on how you look at it), it enables a few very large publishers and broadcasters to extract a little bit of revenue while only increasing barriers to entry for smaller news outlets. And Canada’s version contains some of the most expansive language possible: it doesn’t specifically cover linking, snippets, or copies, but any action where “access to the news content, or any portion of it, is facilitated by any means”. As Geist explains:

This is certainly designed to cover linking but the broad language almost surely extends beyond linking to a specific article. Indeed, a link to the general home page of the Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail or many other Canadian media sites can be said to facilitate access to news content, particularly since the provision adds that it can be just a “portion of it” and the facilitation can occur “by any means.”

Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has made a point of contrasting his bill with the Australian code on the same issue. The Australian code treats three activities as making content available: reproduction of the content, providing an extract of the content (designed to target short blurbs of the stories), or links to the content. While that too is worthy of criticism (the Australian code has actually never been used), it does not cover mere facilitation of access.

…

Would the Supreme Court uphold a law whose effect could be to limit facilitation of access to news? Moreover, how does the entire Bill C-18 framework fit within the federal government’s jurisdiction? It isn’t broadcast, it isn’t telecommunications, and it isn’t copyright. If the government claims powers over anything involving the Internet then it believes there are no real limits on its jurisdiction.

And there will be lots more to say about that bill as well, but for now we must move on once again, because there are still more issues on the table. First, by delving deep into the government’s 2022 Budget, we learn that copyright terms in Canada are being extended to 70 years after the death of the author, up from 50. This isn’t solely an internet policy issue of course, and it was unfortunately inevitable, as it was a commitment in the Canada-US-Mexico Trade Agreement, but the details and the approach still matter. There are important decisions to be made regarding how this extension is implemented (the parliamentary committee charged with reviewing copyright law recommends that the additional 20 years of protection should require registration by rights holders), but sneaking the change into the budget (something the Prime Minister has pledged not to do with important legislation) seems designed to avoid any real scrutiny or discussion. Details will arrive in a forthcoming Budget Implementation Act, where they will similarly be buried amidst all kinds of unrelated issues.

And as if all that wasn’t enough, the Online Harms legislation is waiting in the wings as well. The government recently blew past a self-imposed deadline for introducing a new bill, but Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez says it is still in the works with the help of a newly formed panel of experts. Optimistically, we can hope this indicates the government is truly addressing some of the problems with the approach outlined in their technical paper last year, which would establish a massive new regulatory regime with astonishing powers and public complaints procedures that were ripe for abuse, while making no mention of protecting Canadians’ freedom of expression even as it required platforms to report them to law enforcement for their speech — but given this government’s track record, it’s hard to imagine whatever we get won’t still be riddled with dangerous problems and defended with misleading statements.

A lot could happen as each of these efforts develops, but the writing is on the wall: the government is going to try as hard as it can to regulate the hell out of the internet one way or another. With the current ruling party’s position essentially secure until 2025, it’s going to be an interesting (and dangerous) few years for the internet in Canada.

Filed Under: c-11, canada, copyright, copyright term extension, internet, link tax, streaming

Canadian Gov’t Latest To Decide US Tech Companies Should Be Punished For Sending Web Traffic To Canadian Websites

Policy

from the demanding-food-while-biting-the-hand-that-feeds-it dept

Here we go again. It’s a plan that almost never works but one that legislators and the special interest groups pushing for it continue to believe will shower them with untold riches from billion dollar tech companies that they blame for the destruction of local content creation.

I mean, they’re not entirely wrong… at least in terms of some uncomfortable facts. Local journalism is dying. Some platforms have pushed for adoption of their protocols (looking at you, Facebook) that ultimately result in little more than the platform’s consolidation of power.

But large tech companies aren’t killing local journalism. Lots of entities assumed printing news on paper once a day would be all people needed to stay abreast of current news. Once it became apparent people were moving on to other platforms and services, news agencies reacted. By that time, it was too late. Thousands of sources for news replaced “the only news game in town” as well as the assumption that news only needed to be delivered once a day.

Cable news networks broadcasting 24 hours a day started this landslide. The arrival of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others only cemented the demise of news agencies that believed people would be satisfied with a product that contained an outsized percentage of ads and copy-pasted articles from national news services.

Local news agencies could have opted for a more focused product that engaged directly with readers. Instead, agencies outsourced reader engagement to Facebook and increased uptake of ads and third party content generated by national news sources.

In response, many governments and the vocal special interests they’ve opted to speak for have decided it’s not their fault for responding poorly to this massive shift to internet news sources. Rather than accept the fact they responded poorly, they’ve decided the road to financial solvency runs through the pockets of tech companies that were never in the news business to begin with.

Canadian legislators are the latest to engage in counterproductive lawmaking. It’s only a proposal at this point but, if passed, will subject Canadian concerns to an all-American brush off.

The Canadian government this week introduced a law bill that would force the likes of Google and Facebook to pay Canadian news publishers for using their articles online.

The Online News Act was created to address what Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez described as a crisis in the country’s media sector that has resulted in 451 outlets disappearing between 2008 and 2015. “We want to make sure that news outlets and journalists receive fair compensation for their work. We want to make sure that local independent news thrives in our country,” Rodriguez said in a press statement. 

Specifically, the proposed law seeks to ensure journalists and publishers get a fair cut of the revenues Big Tech banks from aggregating, distributing, sharing, or summarizing stories; the exact arrangements have yet to be hammered out.

Let me just “hammer this out” for you. Do you really want to know how this will work, Canadian legislators and news agencies? Let me demonstrate using this imaginary conversation that it also a fairly recognizable meme:

Canadian gov’t/news agencies: If you want to link to Canadian content, you’ll need to pay us.

US tech companies: Fine, we won’t link to Canadian content.

Gov’t and news agencies: no not like that

This chain of events has occurred repeatedly. And yet, entities like these think it will somehow be different this time.

Tech companies aren’t going to pay for indexing content. Even if you firmly believe companies are morally obligated to pay news sources for sending traffic their way, there’s nothing that actually justifies companies paying to send traffic to others. Even if you firmly believe Google, et al deliberately killed local journalism and desecrated its corpse, simple math shows soaking tech companies won’t return flailing news agencies to solvency, much less to historical levels of profitability predicated on being the only game in town.

The only thing preventing Google, Facebook, etc. from performing a cut-and-run is optics. If these companies determine it’s ultimately more profitable to leak revenue to appease regulators, they will do so. But that determination is largely dependent on how much governments enacting laws like this will demand.

A similar law passed in Australia (one said to directly inspire this Canadian effort) hasn’t resulted in a mass exodus… yet.

When Facebook heard of Australia’s plans, it blocked the ability of users to share any Australian news articles on its social network before agreeing to un-ban the content and enter a peace pact with the government.

Google, meanwhile, said it would pull its search engine out of Australia if forced to pay for news, though has since invested nearly $1 billion dollars to expand staffing and grow its cloud operations in the country.

Australia’s bill passed and went into effect on March 2, 2021, and neither Facebook nor Google have left Down Under.

This sounds like a battle regulators might win. But look closer at the details. Google remains active in Australia and has actually invested more money (in questionable news purveyors), possibly indicating nothing more that it believes adhering to these regulations will keep less well-funded companies from cutting into its market share. And Facebook deployed the nuclear option before regulators were forced to address Facebook’s concerns.

If Canada wants to roll the dice on obligated engagement, it can. But it should probably take a closer look at those demanding to be paid for failing to make the most of increased engagement before deciding the only way forward is to punish other companies for their success.

Filed Under: canada, journalism, link tax, online news act
Companies: facebook, google

Canadian Telecom Giant Rogers Mired In Bizarre Executive Power Feud That Began With A Butt Dial

Politics

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

You might remember Canadian telecom giant Rogers. The company routinely found itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons during the net neutrality wars, after it repeatedly tried to abuse its gatekeeper power to disadvantage other companies. Rogers is like most heavily consolidated regional telecom monopolies: a lack of competition or competent regulatory oversight both created and protects the company thanks to relentless lobbying. As a result, the company never is really challenged, and is consistently allowed to mindlessly merge and grow larger and larger and larger as harms are dismissed.

But there’s been trouble in paradise recently as the company attempts to shuffle around its executive leadership teams. It began with Rogers CEO Joe Natale learning he was going to be fired thanks to an internal coup attempt only revealed thanks to a… butt dial from his CFO. It only got thornier from there.

Ted Rogers died in 2008, and different family factions have been battling for control ever since. Ted’s son Roger was behind the covert effort to replace Natale with Rogers’ CFO Tony Staffieri. Loretta Rogers and her daughters Martha Rogers and Melinda Rogers-Hixon publicly backed Natale after the takeover attempt was revealed. The whole thing has since devolved into an absolute (but highly entertaining) mess:

“Two separate groups of directors have proclaimed themselves the rightful stewards of Rogers Communications, a sprawling C$30bn telecommunications and entertainment empire with interests in media, professional hockey, basketball, baseball, football and soccer.

On Friday, a Canadian court ruled that the faction led by Edward Rogers, son of the company?s late founder, had the power to legally replace directors without a shareholder meeting, granting the eldest son immense power over the country?s largest wireless carrier in a ruling viewed as a blow to shareholders? rights.”

It’s kind of a bizarre fusion of HBO’s Succession and Game of Thrones, albeit with fewer beheadings (so far). Toronto?s mayor, John Tory, was brought in to try and mitigate the ongoing feud, but that fell apart when it was revealed that he’d been getting $80,000 (US) in annual compensation from the board for the last seven years. Keep in mind this is all going on as the company attempts to finalize its $26 billion merger with Canadian telecom giant Shaw, a merger that will be probably approved because in North America, mindless rubber stamping of harmful consolidation is kind of what we do.

Filed Under: canada, power feud
Companies: rogers

Prosecutors Drop Criminal Charges Against Fake Terrorist Who Duped Canadian Gov't, NYT Podcasters

Legal Issues

from the borat-without-the-punchlines dept

For a couple of years, a prominent terrorist remained untouched by Canadian law enforcement. Abu Huzayfah claimed to have traveled to Syria in 2014 to join the Islamic State. A series of Instagram posts detailed his violent acts, as did a prominent New York Times Peabody Award-winning podcast, “Caliphate.”

But Abu Huzayfah, ISIS killer, never existed, something the Royal Canadian Mounted Police verified a year before the podcast began. Despite that, Ontario resident Shehroze Chaudhry — who fabricated tales of ISIS terrorist acts — remained a concern for law enforcement and Canadian government officials, who believed his alter ego was not only real, but roaming the streets of Toronto.

All of this coalesced into Chaudhry’s arrest for the crime of pretending to be a terrorist. Chaudry was charged with violating the “terrorism hoax” law, which is a real thing, even though it’s rarely used. Government prosecutors indicated they intended to argue Chaudhry’s online fakery caused real world damage, including the waste of law enforcement resources and the unquantifiable public fear that Ontario housed a dangerous terrorist.

Chaudry was facing a possible sentence of five years in prison, which seems harsh for online bullshit, but is far, far less than charges of actual terrorism would bring. But it appears everything has settled down a bit and the hoaxer won’t be going to jail for abusing the credulity of others, a list that includes Canadian government officials and New York Times podcasters.

A Canadian man admitted in court on Friday that he made up tales about serving as an Islamic State fighter and executioner in Syria. In exchange, Canadian authorities dropped criminal charges against him of perpetrating a hoax involving the threat of terrorism.

This is pretty much where this was always going to end up. Chaudhry’s acts were stupid, not criminal. That others were taken in by his tales shouldn’t raise it from “potentially embarrassing” to “federally criminal.” And given the fact that the RCMP had already interviewed him and decided not to pursue him as a terrorism suspect nearly a year before he became the central figure in a New York Times podcast indicates the government knew his online persona was a hoax for years before suddenly deciding it should be treated as a criminal act.

Chaudhry is now (mostly) free. He’s no longer facing criminal charges but he will be treated like a criminal for at least the next couple of years.

Under the terms of the peace bond, which is reserved for people who the authorities fear may commit terrorist acts, Mr. Chaudhry must remain in Ontario for the next year and live with his parents. He is prohibited from owning any weapons, must continue to receive counseling and is required to report any changes in his virtual or physical addresses to the police.

Fool us once, shame on us. Fool us for multiple episodes, well… that’s on you, buddy. This has wrapped up one of the weirder tales of the War on Terror, a complete reversal of the expectations here in the US, where it’s the feds who are the fake terrorists.

Filed Under: abu huzayfah, canada, fake terrorist, isis, rcmp, shehroze chaudhry, terrorism, terrorism hoax

Ken Popehat White (Again) Shows How To Respond To A Completely Thuggish Legal Threat Letter

Too Much Free Time

from the rhetorically-speaking dept

It’s been a while since we’ve seen a really good response letter to a — as Ken White likes to call them — “bumptious” legal threat letter. But here we’ve got one, courtesy of Ken himself, representing Chad Loder. Loder is a writer who has been calling out propagandist Andy Ngo and The Post Millennial, a propagandist rag that Ngo sometimes writes for. The Post Millennial was apparently sad about that and sent Loder a very silly legal threat:

Here’s the text of the letter:

From: Sam Coppola Sent: September 29, 2021 2:29 PM

Subject: The Post Millennial v Loder et al.

UNDER RESERVE

We are special counsel to The Post Millennial (“TPM”) who have advised us of various recent posts and allegations you have made publicly and on your Twitter account.

Our client advises us that the posts and allegations are false and misleading (eg: TPM is NOT Ngo’s “disinfo site” or a “disinformation website vilifying the Anti-Defamation League”, it is an independent news organization; TPM is NOT “run by Andy Ngo”, it is a site owned an operated by Matthew Azrieli as is publicly stated on TPM’s website. As specifically denied by Andy Ngo, he does NOT provide “kill lists of journalists…”; Our client and TPM are NOT “neo-nazis” and do NOT “publicly incite violence” or “target journalists with death threats”, in California State legal proceedings case No 21TRR000739 Chad Loder vs Sarah Mason you falsely believe “…that this account is popular with members of the far-right, including violent extremists” and Exhibit L where you indirectly and purposely falsely publish that “Andy Ngo knowingly defended pedophile Amos Yee”, et…) and were done only with malice and intent to harm our client and interfere with its commercial dealings.

Such posts are also a direct violation of Twitter Rules in respect of “Abuse/harassment” since they harassed and targeted our client and Andy Ngo and incited other people to do so including your directed @(TPMadvertiser) tags. Your posts also published private information (a private chat transcript with Sheri Freed) again contrary to law and the Twitter Rules. As you are aware, Twitter has taken these violations very seriously and even suspended the accounts of well known Canadian politicians for abuses such as those made by you.

You are on formal notice to:

1. Cease and Desist publishing any false, misleading, abusive, and harassing posts;
2. Remove all of the unlawful posts;
3. Publish a retraction and apology satisfactory to our client and sent to the public and the clients and customers which you tortiously interfered with.

If you fail to do so within 3 days, our client will be obliged to exercise all other rights and recourse it may have, including without limitation, commence legal proceedings against you without further notice or delay and hold you liable for any and all damages thereto.

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

The main block of the 2nd paragraph is almost entirely inscrutable. It throws in some legal jargon but not in any manner that makes sense. The letter mixes up a bunch of things and suggests that TPM might take legal action, but also that Twitter might act? All in all it’s nonsensical, but Ken White is the master in responding to these kinds of letters, so I’ll let him take it from here:

On whose behalf do you write? You claim to be ?special counsel? to The Post Millennial (?TPM?). Congratulations, I?m sure.¹ Yet most of your threat is a gripe about things Mr. Loder said about Andy Ngo, who is apparently an ?editor at large? for TPM. (Again ? congratulations, I?m sure.) Moreover, after asserting that you represent TPM, you lose track and refer to ?our client and TPM.? Do you represent Mr. Ngo as well? You seem intent on distancing Mr. Ngo from TPM, pointing out that he does not ?run? TPM. I?m sure everyone understands why you?d want to clarify that. But you also seem to be arguing that criticisms of Mr. Ngo are false and that Mr. Ngo is perfectly respectable. How, then, is it defamatory to associate TPM with him? That was a rhetorical question. Since your legal theories are nonsense, it doesn?t matter.

For what it’s worth, the footnote links to this article calling bullshit on a nonsense story spread by The Post Millennial and a few other sites that are focused on driving whatever silly culture war the Trumpist world delights in this week.

It gets better. Ken breaks out his French (thoughtful for the Canadians):

You may believe that you can intimidate Mr. Loder with frivolous legal threats because Canada, despite being quite delightful in many other ways, indulges such vexatious litigation calculated to silence critics on behalf of the thin-skinned, the vengeful, and the cynically partisan. Au contraire, mon ami. The United States, conscious of the dangers of libel tourism and pro-censorship legal systems, has enacted the SPEECH Act, 28 United States Code § 4102. The SPEECH Act prohibits American courts from recognizing foreign defamation judgments obtained under regimes that do not provide defendants with free speech protections as robust as those available under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the laws of the relevant states. American courts have found that there is ?no meaningful dispute that the law applied by [Canadian courts] provides less protection of speech and press than First Amendment and [state] law. Canadian defamation law is derivative of the defamation law of the United Kingdom, which has long been substantially less protective of free speech.? (Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir. 2013) (upholding refusal to recognize Canadian libel judgment under SPEECH Act). Any Canadian judgment you obtain against Mr. Loder will be worthless ? both because Canadian courts lack personal jurisdiction over him (as also required by the SPEECH Act) and because his speech is clearly protected by American law.

Then, he highlights why it would be equally stupid to file a lawsuit in the US:

Perhaps you plan to sue Mr. Loder in America. It would be my pleasure, M. Coppola, to introduce you and your client or clients to one of our anti-SLAPP statutes. Any suit you file in the United States will fail for multiple reasons, and result in you paying Mr. Loder?s legal fees under an anti-SLAPP statute.

He then goes through all the many reasons, including:

Astoundingly, your threat is based largely on things Mr. Loder or his attorney said in court filings. Such statements are absolutely privileged from defamation claims under relevant law. Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b), Pollock v. University of Southern California, 112 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1430-1431 (2003) (declaration filed in court absolutely protected by litigation privilege); Holland v. Jones, 210 Cal.App.4th 378, 382 (2012) (litigation privilege barred defamation action because it was based on statements ?whether true or false or made with malice or without it, in her declaration in [court] proceedings [that] fall squarely within the litigation privilege. They are communications made in a judicial proceeding by a litigant to achieve the objects of the litigation with some connection to the action.?).

Reading this, you get the feeling that Ken was pretty excited to search out any Canadian reference he could think of:

Your threat is also a jumbled, oily poutine of complaints about opinions, insults, and heated rhetoric. But under American law, statements can only be defamatory if they?re provably false statements of fact. ?Thus, rhetorical hyperbole, vigorous epithets, lusty and imaginative expressions of contempt, and language used in a loose, figurative sense have all been accorded constitutional protection.?

There are a few more reasons included as to why any such lawsuit will fail (you can go read the whole letter if you’d like) but the final one is also worth highlighting here:

Finally, I am informed that in Canada a defamation defendant carries the burden of proving that a challenged statement is true. This hardly seems polite. In the United States, which values free speech and scorns the censor and the litigious bully, the burden is on the defamation plaintiff to prove that a challenged statement is false. You will fail to carry that burden. Take, for example, your gripe that Mr. Loder described TPM as a ?disinformation website vilifying the Anti-Defamation League.? Even assuming this statement were a provable statement of fact ? a laughable proposition ? your clients? own words will thwart any effort to disprove it

But, truly, the cherry on top is the closing. As we’ve seen over and over again, letters that close “please govern yourself accordingly” are hallmarks of lawyerly bullying, so it’s nice to see how Ken turns it all around on Mr. Coppola:

Direct all further patently frivolous threats and other communications to me. Kindly govern yourself.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, andy ngo, canada, chad loder, defamation, free speech, ken white, threats
Companies: the post millennial

Canadian Cops Blow Off Drone Operation Laws, Crash Their Drone Into A Landing Airplane

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the laws-must-be-for-other-people-eh dept

Someone finally hit an airplane with a drone while flying it near an airport. And of all people, it was the cops. (h/t Justin England, via Hackaday)

The Transportation Safety Board is investigating after a York regional police drone collided with an airplane approaching Buttonville Airport in Markham last week.

Police confirmed to CityNews they had deployed a Remote Piloted Vehicle (RPV), known more commonly as a drone, as part of an investigation near the airport on August 10.

While it was being operated, the drone collided with a Cessna 172 operated by Canadian Flyers International that was attempting to land. There was an instructor and student pilot on board.

No injuries were reported and the plane was able to land without any further incidents.

This may sound like an open and transparent response by the York police about its irresponsible drone piloting, but this admission about the incident at the Toronto airport was prompted by the Canadian government’s report on the incident, which was released eight days after the accident.

And the police haven’t had much else to say about its errant drone, which apparently came only inches from killing everyone on board.

Dario Matrundola, who is one of the owners of the flight school Canadian Flyers, said had the drone struck a few inches further away, both occupants could’ve been killed.

“It would have been a tragedy, it would’ve been loss of life or injuries for sure. The pilots are very lucky they were able to land the plane and avoid injuries,” said Matrundola.

Here’s Transport Canada’s summary of the accident:

The instructor for a Canadian Flyers International Inc. Cessna 172N (C-GKWL) reported that they had just turned from base leg to final for Runway 15 at Toronto/Buttonville, ON (CYKZ) and were established and stable at 1100 ASL, or about 500 AGL, when they felt a jolt that pushed them back on their seat. They thought they had hit a large bird. They proceeded to land. There was no change in configuration or power since they were about to land. When exiting the aircraft, they were shocked to see a major dent on the left underside of the engine cowling. The airbox was also bent. A few hours later, a police detective confirmed a York Regional Police drone had struck their aircraft. The aircraft suffered major damage, including a propeller strike.

The report also points out NavCanada, which oversees the country’s civil air navigation system, was not made aware of the drone flight nor the York Police’s interest in sending a drone up into the airport’s airspace to engage in an investigation.

If this had been a “civilian” drone, the public would have been informed immediately and regularly updated with progress on catching the perp. But this was a cop flight, so the cops acknowledged the flight when they could no longer deny it, and only because they were now the subject of an investigation by another government body.

It is indeed illegal to fly a drone within three nautical miles of an airport. This ban on operation can only be temporarily lifted with the explicit permission of NavCanada. Obviously this didn’t happen. The only question now should be whether the York Police is an individual or a corporation.

Fines for individuals

• up to $1,000 for flying without a drone pilot certificate

• up to $1,000 for flying unregistered or unmarked drones

• up to $1,000 for flying where you are not allowed

• up to $3,000 for putting aircraft and people at risk

Fines for corporations

• up to $5,000 for flying without a drone pilot certificate

• up to $5,000 for flying unregistered or unmarked drones

• up to $5,000 for flying where you are not allowed

• up to $15,000 for putting aircraft and people at risk

And don’t forget to stack the charges!

If you break more than one rule, you could receive multiple penalties.

Supposedly, everyone is just waiting for the TSB to conclude its investigation. And then there will be more waiting while the York Police engages in its own investigation. Possibly in the next few weeks or months, the news will have cycled often enough someone can fire off a press release late in the afternoon just ahead of the next convenient bank holiday.

Maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised. Maybe someone will get rung up for being completely irresponsible on top of actually violating federal law. But I doubt it. When a citizen does it, nothing can get the police to shut up about it. But when the police do it, no member of the public can get them to start talking, much less treat their own internal lawbreaking as seriously as they treat lawbreaking by outsiders.

Filed Under: airplanes, canada, drones, police, surveillance, york regional police

Canadian Government Continues Its War On Internet Freedom With New 'Online Harms' Legislation

Policy

from the it's-very-bad dept

A few months ago, we wrote about the Canadian government’s attempt to give its broadcast regulators sweeping new powers to regulate social media via Bill C-10 — a massive piece of legislation that seemed to only get worse over time thanks to unclear, ever-shifting provisions and a rushed, secretive amendment process before being passed by the House of Commons in the middle of the night. That bill is now in limbo in the Senate, and Canadians are waiting to see if it will come back in the September session or be preempted by an early federal election. Unfortunately, the stalling-out of Bill C-10 hasn’t put a stop to the ruling Liberal government’s efforts to create unprecedented new powers of internet regulation, and now their ongoing campaign is continuing with a technical paper outlining plans for more new legislation to address “harmful online content”.

The planned bill is supposed to address five categories of content: terrorist content, incitement of violence, hate speech, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and child sexual exploitation material. This apparently noble goal masks a wide range of utterly disastrous plans for stringent regulation that belong in the hall of fame for bad internet policy. The effort is headed up by Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault — the same Minister whose astonishing inability to answer questions about Bill C-10 all but confirmed that the law would do far more than its stated intent. In theory, the release of this technical paper is kicking off a public consultation, but the rushed and secretive procedure that happened with C-10 has left most observers completely unconvinced that the government will be genuinely receptive to even good-faith criticisms of the plan or its potential impact on free expression in Canada. Michael Geist describes it as:

…a process billed as a consultation, but which is better characterized as an advisory notice, since there are few questions, options or apparent interest in hearing what Canadians think of the plans.

… The perspective on [Online Communications Services] is clear from the very outset. After a single perfunctory statement on the benefits of OCSs which says little about the benefits of freedom of expression ? the document does not include a single mention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or net neutrality ? the government proceeds to outline a series of harms.

So just what would this proposed bill do to address its list of harmful content? It would establish a huge new web of bureaucracy consisting of a Digital Safety Commission, a tribunal to rule on content takedown demands, and an advisory board to shape ongoing social media regulation. Through this framework, “Online Communications Services” (the government lists Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter as examples) would face expansive new requirements, such as taking down content the bureaucrats deem unsuitable within 24 hours (we discussed how unrealistic and dangerous this is when the EU had the same idea) and adhering to new pro-active monitoring and reporting requirements that will force them to turn over information on Canadian users directly to federal law enforcement. The new Digital Safety Commissioner would have the power to determine whether their monitoring efforts are sufficient, including whether or not the use of AI tools is acceptable. This could have any number of consequences, all of them bad: aggressive over-blocking of content, invasive monitoring of users even in private messages (though the government insists private communication will not be covered, this government’s history of failing to uphold its promised limits on internet legislation does not inspire much confidence), and Canadians getting visits from the feds for engaging in protected speech.

If platforms fail to comply with the requirements they could face hefty penalties, and ultimately the government could play its trump card: ordering all Canadian ISPs to block access in the country, depriving all Canadians of powerful tools for free expression because the companies were unable to meet impossible requirements. That’s assuming that many platforms don’t just stop operating in Canada themselves in order to avoid the stifling regulatory framework, because if you’re wondering where these takedown demands will come from and what the required remedies will look like, the answer is… almost anyone, and almost anything:

In order to enforce these rules, the public could file complaints with the Digital Safety Commissioner. The new commissioner would be empowered to hold hearings on any issue, including non-compliance or anything that the Commissioner believes is in the public interest. The Digital Safety Commissioner would have broad powers to order the OCSs ?to do any act or thing, or refrain from doing anything necessary to ensure compliance with any obligations imposed on the OCSP by or under the Act within the time specified in the order.? Moreover, there would also be able to conduct inspections of companies at any time.

Yes, the government wants to give a new commissioner the power to basically set any rules they want about how online platforms operate, for any reason, so long as it can be framed as a matter of “public interest” — and to be able to conduct random inspections to ensure compliance. It also provides extremely wide latitude for the commissioner to hold hearings in secret if the issue can be said to impact privacy, national security, international relations, national defense or confidential commercial interests, among other things. And that’s not all: the planned legislation would also grant Canada’s national intelligence service, CSIS, new powers to secretly investigate online threats.

And, for the pleasure of facing all these stringent new requirements that would make operating in Canada extremely unappealing if not impossible, online platforms get to foot the bill:

The proposed legislation will create new regulatory charges for OCSs doing business in Canada to cover the costs of the regulatory structure as the companies will pay for the Digital Safety Commissioner, the Digital Recourse tribunal, and the Digital Commission. As part of the payment requirements, the Digital Safety Commissioner can demand financial disclosures from OCSs to determine ability to pay and Canadian revenues.

And once again, because it’s worth reiterating: the document outlining these plans never once mentions the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or, even in general, the right of Canadians to free expression.

It’s hard to imagine a more appalling, arrogant move by this current government, even after its long history of trying to clamp down on the internet with powerful new regulations. These proposals are not new ideas: they’ve been floated and sometimes attempted in countries all over the world for years, and the huge problems they present have been discussed and dissected many times. But the government hasn’t even paid lip service to criticisms and counterarguments, and its invitation for public comment feels perfunctory and irrelevant rather than sincere — especially with Minister Guilbeault’s track-record of ignoring such criticism and failing to give clear answers to important questions.

If Bill C-10 is any indication, the House of Commons will rush this proposal through and frame opposition as bad-faith partisanship, while constantly tweaking the specifics in ways that will make it difficult for the public to even know precisely what the final bill says and does. The strongest obstacles to its passage are the Senate and the looming possibility of an early election, but Canadians can’t rely too heavily on either of those things. It will take a truly massive deluge of official public comment submissions (accepted until September 25th), as well as pressure on Members of Parliament and some good old public outrage, to stand a chance of making this government pause before barreling forward with this disastrous plan.

Filed Under: canada, censorship, content moderation, digital safety commission, online harms, steven guilbeault, takedowns

Biden Still Hasn't Picked An FCC Boss, But He Just Tagged A Comcast Lobbyist As Ambassador To Canada

Politics

from the priorities-priorities dept

Consumer groups have grown increasingly annoyed at the Biden administration’s failure to pick a third Democratic Commissioner and permanent FCC boss six months into his term. After the rushed Trump appointment of unqualified Trump BFF Nathan Simington to the agency (as part of that dumb and now deceased plan to have the FCC regulate social media), the agency now sits gridlocked at 2-2 commissioners under interim FCC head Jessica Rosenworcel.

While the FCC can still putter along tackling its usual work on spectrum and device management, the gridlock means it can’t do much of anything controversial, like reversing Trump-era attacks on basic telecom consumer protections, media consolidation rules, or the FCC’s authority to hold telecom giants accountable for much of, well, anything. If you’re a telecom giant like AT&T or Comcast, a gridlocked agency remains a policy gift.

It will take months to appoint and seat a third commissioner and permanent FCC boss. It will take additional months to get that person settled in place to even start working on serious policy proposals. In other words, by the time the FCC is fully staffed, a full year may have been wasted that could have been spent on tackling the not insubstantial problems in the telecom space. While Biden certainly has been aggressive on other fronts (appointing Lina Khan head of the FTC), fixing the mess in telecom clearly hasn’t been a top priority.

What has been more of a priority? Appointing former Comcast lobbyist David Cohen to the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, apparently. Cohen held the very first fundraising dinner for Biden’s Presidential campaign back in 2019, and has now been amply rewarded for his loyalty:

“Biden has nominated David Cohen, a former senior executive vice president at NBCUniversal owner Comcast, to serve as the U.S. ambassador to Canada. Cohen is currently a senior advisor to Comcast CEO Brian Roberts.”

Comcast historically gets very angry when you call Cohen a lobbyist, despite the fact he spearheaded the company’s lobbying and policy efforts for the better part of the last decade. After the U.S. updated its feeble lobbying rules in 2007 to require lobbyists to register if they spent any more than 20% of their time lobbying, Comcast simply called what Cohen did…something else. More specifically the company’s “Chief Diversity Officer,” despite Cohen’s actual lack of any, you know, diversity. Cohen was a huge architect of gaining government approval of Comcast’s massive 2011 merger with NBC Universal.

Making an aging telecom retiree and loyal fundraiser happy in his twilight years certainly isn’t the end of the world. But it’s still not a great look when you’ve prioritized rewarding telecom lobbyists over properly staffing the agency that oversees telecom.

Previous FCC boss Ajit Pai spent four years studying how the FCC worked as a Commissioner, then when appointed agency Chairman by Trump, set about using that knowledge to ruthlessly dismantle not just consumer protections, but state and federal oversight of telecom in general. Usually, Pai operated in perfect symmetry with large regional telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast, embracing some extremely ruthless behavior along the way. Reversing those policies requires a certain level of urgency from team Biden that so far really hasn’t been particularly apparent.

How tough Biden will be on telecom remains an open question. While his executive order contained some interesting promises, most can’t be accomplished without a properly staffed FCC, or an agency head with a backbone. I can still see things going either way here. I can see him appointing a tougher, Lina-Khan esque type interested in genuine reform. But I can also see him making a safe pick that chirps all the right notes (5G is great! damn that digital divide!) but, like so many in DC, isn’t willing to truly acknowledge monopolization and corruption are the primary causes of U.S. telecom dysfunction.

Filed Under: ambassador, canada, competition, david cohen, fcc, joe biden, political favors, soft corruption