In particular, Cybertip.ca:
- is amenable to incorporating judicial review of the block list
- will issue regular public reports that identify the number of sites on the block list along with the number of participating ISPs
- will only block images of pre-pubescent child pornography, thereby limiting the prospect of overblocking legal content
- is developing an appellate process that includes review from the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre
- is subject to several internal accountability mechanisms including an independent board of directors and pressure from funders (60 percent of its funding comes from the federal government) to avoid potential liability by overblocking
which still does not address all the issues involved. As one commenter put it,
Secret blocking, with secret trials, with secret oversight doesn’t sound Canadian and should correctly be opposed; however, if cleanfeed wants to do this open and notoriously; more power to them. I think the issue comes down to public trust, and we have no ability to trust this organization, or any one branch of government. Our trust is in the system as a whole, and if we’re going to allow this type of thing, then stakeholders from all branches should have to approve. I guarantee if this program was publically reviewed, you’d see a lot of amicus briefs and policy documents that ensure that this program is consistent with the structure of our democracy. Right now it feels like its being created in an end-run around the checks and balances that are so critical to the system.
There are also common-carrier issues wherein can a site be blocked without notification. If someone has uploaded illegitimate information to a site, and that site is not in the business of moderation, can that site or isp even be blocked without a notice-and-takedown type request. They clearly can’t decide if an image is illegal or not; thats [correctly] not their job as a common carrier. It would seem to me that the presence of material on a network does not necissarily mean that the ISP should be punished and blocked. For example most USENET mirrors could be accused of hosting this type of material, but it is unfeasible to mandate that ISPs monitor all USENET traffic or face an entire blocking of their USENET service. [Don’t give me counter-arguments about they only block websites-blah-blah, give it 12 months). There needs to be some form of notice-and-notice and notice-and-takedown given judicial order that an ISP can comply with in order to ensure that it is not blocked. What about collateral dammage from ip-based blocks? Voices-for-change and the 700 or so blocked sites involved does tend to come to mind….
…Cleanfeed just isnt the right organization to be doing this type of thing, it should be a branch of the judicial system.
And still nobody has pointed out to me whether or not this type of blacklist has actually been proven to help keep children safe.