[FYI] (Fwd) FC: Canada considers licensing Internet service provider

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent:      	Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:20:35 -0500
To:             	politech@politechbot.com
From:           	Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject:        	FC: Canada considers licensing Internet service providers
Send reply to:  	declan@well.com

See also:

"Will Canada's Internet providers become spies?"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03922.html

--

Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:02:15 -0500
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
From: Jason Young <jyoung@lexinformatica.org>
Subject: Canada to licence ISPs?

Declan,

A recent private member's bill (Bill C-234) introduced in Parliament
calls for licencing of Canadian ISPs as a measure to prevent child
porn. The bill has almost no chance of passing, but in the context of
other activity in the House - namely the CoE cybercrime amendments -
deserves scrutiny.

I've written a brief but accessible legal analysis piece on it, which
I excerpt below.

Also relevant:
Matt Skala's weblog http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lw/?id=2002102601
Bill C-234 story on Slashdot 
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/10/23/1739253.shtml?tid=158
Lawful Access proposals http://www.lexinformatica.org/cybercrime/

Sincerely,

Jason

---

On October 21st, MP Peter Stoffer (NDP, Sackville-Musquodoboit 
Valley-Eastern Shore) re-introduced a private member's bill that would
require all ISPs to be licenced by the CRTC.

The Internet Child Pornography Prevention Act, first introduced in
1998 by former MP Chris Axworthy,  defines ISPs as "a person who
provides a service that facilitates access to the Internet, whether or
not the service is provided free or for a charge." It would include
non-profits and intermediaries who provide services ancillary to
necessary access, such as caching, or those which facilitate access to
the substance on the Internet, rather than the infrastructure, such as
web hosting.

The definition embraces a potentially much larger number of
intermediaries than that recently contemplated by the Federal Court of
Appeal. In SOCAN v. CAIP et al., [2002] F.C.A. 166, the court reviewed
a Copyright Board decision and found that the role of an Internet
intermediary is prima facie passive because they do not have the
practical capacity to exercise control over the content of the
material that is transmitted.  The court set out a three part test for
determining eligibility for limitation of liability - often termed a
'safe harbour' - for ISPs. First, the intermediary's activities must
amount to the provision of "the means of telecommunication"; second,
these means must be "necessary" for enabling another person to
communicate a work to the public; and third, the activities in
question must constitute the intermediary's "only act" with respect to
the communication. Bill C-234 contains no such safe harbour.

Full story: 
http://www.lexinformatica.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=ar
ticle&sid=37&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 -- 

---
http://www.lexinformatica.org
http://www.privaterra.org
http://www.epic.org
830F AE11 91C5 946E CF80  684C F13C 79C3 46E1 1518




----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing
list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this
notice. To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is
archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs
are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles:
http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---

------- End of forwarded message -------


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de