Tories spar over UK's delayed Online Safety Bill
- Reference: 1657863065
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/07/15/online_safety_bill_delayed/
- Source link:
Introduced in its current form last year by the Tory-run British government, the Online Safety Bill is [1]supposed to tackle the spread of illegal material and shield people from harm in cyberspace.
The draft law has been [2]ambling its way through Parliament, and was due to be debated again in the House of Commons on Monday, having reached its final stages, but has now been put on the back burner until autumn by all accounts.
[3]
Essentially, the government ran out of time to pass the law before the summer recess, which starts on July 21 and ends on September 5.
[4]
[5]
Some say the delay is due to the government tabling a discussion on a vote of confidence in itself [6]on Monday in response to the opposition Labour party attempting to put forward a vote of no confidence.
What with other pressing matters to fit in before the summer break – such as wrangling over the future of Northern Ireland post-Brexit – the Online Safety Bill reading was shunted out of the way of those debates and into the latter part of the year. That was the [7]official line from the Prime Minister's spokesperson.
[8]
And some say it's because the Tories are preoccupied with their leadership contest, the winner of which will be the next British prime minister as they will replace the [9]outgoing Churchill cosplayer Boris Johnson. Given that the next PM may not support the law, it might not be a bad idea to hold off passing this flagship yet controversial legislation until a successor is selected.
On Thursday, Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch [10]tweeted the Online Safety Bill "is in no fit state to become law."
"If I'm elected prime minister I will ensure the bill doesn’t over reach. We should not be legislating for hurt feelings," she added.
We should not be legislating for hurt feelings
By that, we think, she's referring to the consequences of the draft law as it stands – that social media companies will have to restrict content that's basically [11]lawful but awful . Essentially the law seeks, in a labyrinthine way, to minimize content and posts from the internet that could cause harm – physical or psychological – to someone.
Culture secretary Nadine Dorries, who sponsored the internet bill and is backing Liz Truss for leader, [12]hit back at Badenoch, saying: "Encouraging others to take their own life is what comes under that definition. It's a huge problem, especially with young people. You really define that as 'hurt feelings?'"
[13]
Damian Collins, a minister in Dorries's department and a champion of the bill, also [14]defended it, saying Badenoch was "completely wrong," and added: "Tell me where in this bill there is any provision that requires the removal of legal speech. Instead for the first time we can set safety standards online based on our laws."
Labour's shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell also came out swinging for the bill, [15]accusing Badenoch of having "no idea how the bill will work nor why it's needed."
Tory backbencher David Davis, meanwhile, had [16]this to say about the bill: "We all want the internet to be safe. Right now, there are too many dangers online, from videos propagating terror to posts promoting self-harm and suicide.
"But the bill's well-intentioned attempts to address these very real risks threatens being the biggest accidental curtailment of free speech in modern history."
Tech world may face huge fines if it doesn't scrub CSAM from encrypted chats [17]EARLIER
One of Davis's colleagues, Nick Fletcher, chimed in along the same lines, demanding free speech protections, and argued that "whatever we might think about Donald Trump, it cannot be right that he was banned from Twitter."
The Online Safety Bill is big and broad, and still due to be debated and amended. It is more of a framework, from which rules and codes will be developed with the communications regulator Ofcom, so this will be a long-running issue. If passed, among other things, messaging apps and other communications services – particularly those with strong end-to-end encryption – will be under pressure to somehow catch and report material depicting child sexual abuse and exploitation.
Porn websites, and [18]perhaps even social networks, may have to verify visitors are adults. Fraudulent advertising will need to be tackled. It's basically risk assessments [19]all the way down – along with measures to curb what's deemed to be harmful and abusive on the internet. ®
Get our [20]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-online-safety-bill
[2] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YtE6wCAsIRawodQICeS0OgAAAIs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YtE6wCAsIRawodQICeS0OgAAAIs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YtE6wCAsIRawodQICeS0OgAAAIs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://whatson.parliament.uk/commons/2022-07-18/
[7] https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-government-postpones-consideration-online-safety-law-2022-07-14/
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YtE6wCAsIRawodQICeS0OgAAAIs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/07/boris_johnson_tech_legacy/
[10] https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1547294743394131969
[11] https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/online-safety-work-needed-improve-uk-bill
[12] https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1547322664783695877
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YtE6wCAsIRawodQICeS0OgAAAIs&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/1547344817671311360
[15] https://twitter.com/LucyMPowell/status/1547307025876516867?
[16] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jul/13/online-safety-bill-tories-free-speech-david-davis
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/07/uk_online_safety_bill_chat_scanning/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/08/age_verification_for_social_media_ukgov_plans/
[19] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2022/03/25/the-uk-online-safety-bill-an-outline/
[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Lets hope it
Why are they going after archive.org (and where will I get my Buster Keaton films if they do)?
Re: Lets hope it
A bunch of big game publishers are butt-hurt that their back catalogues are dumped onto archive.org. I'm sure they will be involved in lobbying to influence the law in their interest. Political donations and whatnot. (That thing you should almost always vote against at shareholder AGMs).
Some forgotten warez CDs from 1993 I am sure are of interest to a few old-school computer nerds for tracking down very-long forgotten titles, probably not available through any other means.
Really the whole legal exercise is quite pointless, the more the grip is tightened, the more VPN use will occur as a trivial way to bypass it.
Still, as long as people keep voting for the current government, things are not going to improve.
Re: Lets hope it
I've got a Safari Extension called Vinegar installed. I only remember that youtube has videos when I use a different browser...
This isn't it, but something seems to be needed
There was, in fact, a time when nothing was regulated on the Internet in terms of content, and when some pretty smart but perhaps optimistic people argued strongly that the 'net existed outside of the law, and thus couldn't be regulated.
Then of course people started making money on the 'net, and such notions disappeared. Perhaps not surprisingly the first laws governing the Internet involved intellectual property - can't have Napster allowing people to "steal" music can we?
What fascinated me in these discussions is how very, very fast things always escalate from "should we moderate some kinds of content?" to "I should be allowed to be an asshole on any platform, anywhere." And how companies like Facebook can be allowed to on one hand present stuff that is arguably dangerous and unlawful, but on the other have a desperate and chilling fear of pictures of nipples.
I really do not understand the people who insist that Donald Trump should be allowed onto Twitter or Facebook even if they don't want him there. Surely as privately owned companies they have very right - or even obligation - to establish policies and remove those who don't respect them.
No shoes, no shirt, no service.
And it's not because Trump irritated me on Twitter - I didn't follow him, and blocked many who did, so his being there didn't impact me.
The problem with laws such as these is that they seem to be written by people who honestly don't understand the Internet, or by corporations that only want to protect their own vested interests. I suspect that a forum of Reg readers could draft a set of basic laws that could manage what happens on-line, but we're not the people invited to the table.
In all seriousness, is there anyone in the pool of Boris replacements that you would trust to manage what you do on-line?
Re: This isn't it, but something seems to be needed
"In all seriousness, is there anyone in the pool of Boris replacements that you would trust to manage what you do on-line?"
I wouldn't trust a single one of them to be able to navigate themselves through a sodden brown paper bag, unless of course it contained several large stacks of cash, in which case I would expect them to rip the paper bag to pieces in their overexuberance to reach said stacks.
But YMMV
Authoritarianism
The issue we've had in the last 30 years is that we've slowly been going in the direction of authoritarianism in the UK for years under the guise of "Think of the children!".
It's no longer up for debate now: It's a very real danger and, it's coming out of the intolerant socialist-type mindset which is culturally dominant in the west these days.
You may approve of that last thing (I don't approve of any ideology which is so over powering, left or right) and may even approve of such laws. Just keep this in mind: The pendulum swings and when it comes back, the "other side" may become as culturally dominent - and you've voted in all the powers they need to shut you and your opinions down and possibly send you to prison.
Also, having rules and laws based off of how someone else feels is insane and absolutely open to extreme abuse.
Re: Authoritarianism
What's worse is that most of these authoritarian "think of the children" laws not only do nothing to protect children, but often have unintended consequences that make it harder to do so.
Re: Authoritarianism
"intolerant socialist-type mindset"
Sorry, you confused me. For a moment I thought you were suggesting that the far right remnant of the conservative party was socialist. Sorry. Must have totally misread what you wrote, unless of course you're another one who can't actually provide a single instance of "socialist intolerance" while whining about how hard it makes your life.
Re: Authoritarianism
I don't dispute the authoritarianism you refer to is very real. Social media, bad newspapers and TV content that trivialises every issue to "you're with me or against me" all have a hand in reinforcing authoritarian attitudes, and the first-past-the-post system drives that too.
I dispute your claims that the "socialist" mindset as being responsible for this. Conservative, if not downright right wing politics are actively changing US laws right now to reduce personal freedoms. (e.g. Abortion).
It's a UK conservative govt that's brought forward these badly thought out censorship laws; which blatantly exhibit signs of lobbying by media outfits worried about copyright. Should kids be able to access "dodgy" material? And who defines what is dodgy? How do you authenticate who's who? VPN's and fake authentication will provide routes past. If owning a credit card is a pre-req, kids that really want to access will steal credit cards.
On your last point, rules-and-laws about how someone else feels? Well, we don't allow the Colosseum to host bloodsport-to-the-death anymore because most people feel that's not civilised. In Ancient Greece, Jimmy Saville's now-not-so-hidden disgusting activities were commonplace. And most of us feel that slavery is bad, despite made-in-China slave-labour being the default production method for most of the clothes you're wearing.
The law as evolved is absolutely based upon feeling and cultural acceptances. To pretend it isn't is delusional.
Re: the intolerant socialist-type mindset which is culturally dominant in the west
You make plenty of good points, then stir in this mindless insult about "socialism" which is irrelevant to the story of what an idiotic right wing populist conservative government is trying to pass into law.
Nadine Dorries is a socialist? No, she's just another over ambitious Tory cynic, grubbing for votes amongst the easily influenced, with little thought about any consequences which are nothing to do with how popular this bill might make her.
Freedom to be be butt hurt.
Trump’s freedom of speech was never affected by the twitter ban. There are plenty of other outlets and he even tried to roll his own.
If Trump gets any kind of trouble for inciting those loons to try and occupy the Capitol building then there may be some overlap with his freedom of speech there.
But free speech doesn’t begin and end with twitter or any single social sewer platform.
Re: Freedom to be be butt hurt.
The interesting thing, of course, is that if the OSB were to become law then companies would be *less* likely to let someone like Trump on their platform (because they'd risk liability for what was sent).
Re: Freedom to be be butt hurt.
You see sad sacks and whingers claiming free speech when their pointless comment, that mostly gets ignored anyway, was moderated from some online forum somewhere.
But nobody is threatening these people with the law or prison for what they are saying, they are just coming up against a "my house my rules" policy. It's not against somebody's free choice if I refuse to allow them to smoke cigarettes in my house. They are free to go and stink somewhere else. So if a sewer like Twitter or Faecebook doesn't want your comment, then you are similarly free to go and make your comment somewhere else.
I'm surprised
that the article didn't mention the responses that those tweeting in support got.
Nadine Dorries: Encouraging others to take their own life is what comes under that definition. It’s a huge problem, especially with young people. You really define that as ‘hurt feelings?’
Response: That's already illegal. You can get 14 years of imprisonment. Here's a little info as you appear to be a little unaware: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide
Collins: This is completely wrong @KemiBadenoch - tell me where in this bill there is any provision that requires the removal of legal speech
Response: https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1547335143597146114 (section 151 4 says: “Harm” means psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress)
Lucy Powell: Educate yourself before you preach if you want to be PM.
Response: basically boils down to: have you actually read it?
It really does seem that most who support it don't understand what it says. Perhaps they're too close to it, and so only see their own interpretation.
Section 151 really is quite bad though ( [1]https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121/220121.pdf ), well intended or not, this is not a well written law.
[1] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0121/220121.pdf
Re: I'm surprised
It's also worth remembering that Badenoch worked as a software engineer and systems analyst before going into politics, so she's likely to have more of a clue on internet stuff than Dorries.
The British Internet....
4 pages worth and playing the national anthem. Nadine Dorries thinks them internets are like a telly you can talk back to.
Re: The British Internet....
I thought the internet was supposed to be a television you cannot turn off, always shows government selected content, watches everything you and and sends it to the Ministry of Love.
Three Impossible Goals In Search Of An Attractive Political Posture!!
Quote #1: "...websites...may have to verify visitors are adults..."
Quote #2: "...the biggest accidental curtailment of free speech in modern history..."
Quote #3: "...messaging apps and other communications services – particularly those with strong end-to-end encryption – will be under pressure..."
Well, well, well....how many impossible things do I have to believe -- all at the same time -- on this sunny Friday morning?
#1: "Authentication" is one thing, but age verification is another thing (and impossible as well!).
#2: Ha...."free speech", but no mention that "free speech" comes with personal responsibility for the "speech". Now...about "personal responsibility"....did I mention authentication? Not only is age verification impossible, personal identity can also be very, very difficult to determine. So the internet needs to match "free speech" with authorial identity. Another impossibility!
#3: Here we go again.....how does this law prevent users from using personal encryption BEFORE any message enters an E2EE channel? Yet another impossible goal!!
It does make me wonder about the education level of our political class.....but then again, none of this is real......it's all political posturing!
Lets be honest all these 'won't someone think of the children' laws, are written because some lazy parents want to sit back watching TV and just let their kids loose on the internet unmonitored and when little Timmy find some inappropriate content, they can blame the government for not doing enough.
Plus its a good way for the Tories to add on clauses which undermine E2E encryption by requiring scanning for abuse images on messaging apps.
But by the sounds of it it has support from both Tories and Labour MPs so there is a good chance its coming no matter who is is power.
Lets hope it
fucks off. Oh no, I said a bad word, does that mean I'll be arrested now under this shit law? On no, I did it again I called it a shit law.
Nadine is a fuck whit (ooo I did it there as well. The Register will have to start censoring). Several people, including MPs I believe, have pointed out to her, that the way she behaves on Tweeter, under her own new law, she'd be guilty herself.
"Fraudulent advertising will need to be tackled"
Thats YouTube dead then. The whole bill is a stupid fucking idea that is unworkable. All those big tech companies, that are mainly American, will pull out of the UK. If you don't like their practices, simply don't fucking use them.
I use Odysee as an alternative to YouTube as there is no censorship on it. And the dick parking fine company can't, falsely flag my video for removal on Odysee. However, YouTube is still easier to use, so when I can use adblock I use YouTube, but when I can't and my fav subbed content is only on YouTube I have to watch via that. My long winded point....the amount of scam adverts that come up before a video, the ones with the computer generated voice talking about a clearly bogus product, is shocking. I report them whenever I see them but fuck all is ever done. YouTube consistently blame AdSense for these, ignoring the fact they fucking own AdSense. It seems all they care about is profit. As long as that advert is paid for & they still get their cut everytime its played, they appear to not give a fuck.
But there is the question. Does the government now sue YouTube over this? Google (YouTube) has very deep pockets. They could also, to be spiteful say "It will be too costly for us to police this so we are pulling out of the UK market. The UK will no longer be allowed to visit YouTube.com".
And worse of all, we might be shut out of archive.org. a site that is so good and important, even very tight with money me, donated to it, granted it was only £5 but still.