Drew Wilson is back to making submissions in the legislative process. This time, it’s on the Bill S-209 age verification bill.
A while ago, I looked up to see where Canada’s Age Verification legislation currently is sitting. According to the online page tracking such bills, it currently is at the Senate Committee – specifically, the “Legal and Constitutional Affairs” committee.
With the hearings already under way and submissions seemingly already posted, I thought I had missed the boat in making a submission. I responded by basically mumbling, “darn, I could’ve directly contributed a lot to such a debate.” The thing was, I checked back at a later time to see if the hearings were over only to discover more submissions were being posted. So, I looked up at different resources to figure out how to make a submission and discovered that such submissions could be submitted to the committee clerk via e-mail. That information was found via this document (PDF). So, using the contact e-mail found on this page, I submitted my brief.
I don’t know if it’ll make it through the system, but I figured it was worth a shot anyway. For what it’s worth, the submission I sent can be found here (PDF).
The submission was basically a tear down of age verification in general. From the foundations of “porn addiction” to the flaws of the technology itself, the 7 page document dismantles age verification from top to bottom largely from a technological perspective (i.e. the shockingly high failure rates of these technologies), but also borrows perspectives from psychology as well. It cites numerous studies on the subject to back up the points made as well as the many different developments that have happened as other nations, such as Australia, and the UK, as they experiment with this thought experiment to disastrous results.
I also made references to the stove being hot. This is in reference to my warnings of the dangers of the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act. I effectively warned that the stove was hot, but the government didn’t listen. as a result, the Canadian government burned their hand on the stove. My warning about Age Verification is the third time I find myself warning that the stove is hot and that touching it will cause the governments hand to burn.
Now, I am under no illusion that the government will listen. When it comes to legislative processes revolving around technology, the government has a long history of refusing to listen to facts and reality. If anything, facts and reality have long been viewed as some sort of nefarious interference into the legislative process. Nevertheless, I felt it was important to at least have my voice heard. If it doesn’t appear on the site itself, then my submission can at least be found on my own site here. Hey, worth a shot, right?
A little update. I found out that they accepted my submission. I guess my method worked after all. Still don’t know why my inquiry to a different e-mail never got a response, but hey, not going to complain that something worked.
Im glad they are still discussing s-209 rather than fast-passing it in the comittee. however? while the website says they dont have everyone sheduled yet for the meetings whats on the board are board members from Australia and Germany e-safety and media authorities and im sure they’ll give glowing recommendations to the tech. And earlier thursday they had Yoti, Needemand, and the age verification providers association.
I hope Michael Ghiest was convincing on Wednesday.
The fact that it’s still being discussed is a good thing. I think Geist is fully capable of delivering a completely on point perfect argument against this legislation or advocating for absolutely bare minimum reforms to make this legislation at least half way palatable. Will it really make a difference? I’m not so certain.
When Geist was pushing back against the Online News Act and Online Streaming Act (his efforts were commendable and I had no problem supporting him on both accounts), politicians started accusing him of being in bed with “Big Tech” for the crime of opposing those, at the time, bills. It got to the point where he had to start speaking with a disclaimer at the beginning of his talks that his views are his own and that he does not speak on behalf of others. It was absolutely gross that such a thing was necessary, but I recognized that it was given the political climate of simply accusing anyone daring to oppose either bill as being part of some grand conspiracy by “Big Tech”. It’s absurd he even had to do that given his multiple decades of experience on these topics, but fewer and fewer people seem to give a flip about that. In their eyes, you were either with them or with “Big Tech”, end of story.
Given the history of this bill, though, it’s entirely possible that because he gives off even a hint of opposition, politicians will simply accuse him of being against “protecting children” or somehow a pervert or whatever other ridiculous accusation they could come up with (privately or publicly).
I don’t like being cynical about the process, but given the history, it’s hard to have much faith in it these days when it comes to anything related to tech. The first year of the Trudeau government was a LONG time ago and we seem to be a very long distance away from that.