UK Online Safety Bill to become law – and encryption busting clause is still there
- Reference: 1695218535
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/09/20/uk_online_safety_bill_passes/
- Source link:
The most recent published version of the bill includes the contentious passage that if comms regulator Ofcom considers "that it is necessary and proportionate to do so, they may give a notice described in subsection (2), (3) or (4) relating to a regulated user-to-user service or a regulated search service to the provider of the service." In theory, this could also encompass private communications that make use of encryption technology provided by platforms.
In February, encrypted chat service Signal threatened to end UK operations if the British government did not reconsider its stance. [1]Later in April , other end-to-end encryption platforms including Element, Session, Threema, Viber, WhatsApp, and Wire urged UK lawmakers to rethink the bill.
[2]
Under the new legislation, UK media and communication regulator Ofcom could fine companies up to £18 million ($22.28 million) or 10 percent of their global annual revenue, whichever is greater. The sections about media and messaging appear watered down after the most [3]recent amendments after being pored over by the Lords and the House of Commons.
[4]
[5]
In a [6]statement , the government said the bill gives people powers to make sure illegal content is removed. It will also place a legal responsibility on social media platforms to enforce the promises they make to users when they sign up, through terms and conditions. Lastly, the legislation will give users the option to filter out harmful content, such as bullying, that they do not want to see online.
Backdoor blues
As we reported [7]earlier this month, there was an admission from the government that breaking encryption would not be technically "feasible," meaning it could not be enforced in such a manner.
[8]During a Lords debate , Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, from the ruling Conservative party, said: "Ofcom can require the use of a technology by a private communication service only by issuing a notice to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse content under Clause 122. A notice can be issued only where technically feasible and where technology has been accredited as meeting minimum standards of accuracy in detecting only child sexual abuse and exploitation content orders to scan user files."
Notices would also have to comply with Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, he said.
[9]
However, on the bill's passing yesterday, [10]civil liberties non-profit the Electronic Frontier Foundation said : "Given the text of the law, neither the government's private statements to tech companies, nor its weak public assurances, are enough to protect the human rights of British people or internet users around the world."
[11]Earlier this month , the EFF warned the bill could, in certain situations, give the government powers to make online platforms use government-approved software to search through all users' photos, files, and messages, scanning for illegal content.
It said such a backdoor scanning system could be exploited by bad actors and produce false positives, leading to false accusations. However, the EFF also conceded the government may not be able to enforce some aspects of the bill.
[12]
Meanwhile, countering Lord Parkinson's earlier comments, UK technology minister Michelle Donelan [13]told newswire Reuters shortly after this that the government would, if necessary, require tech platforms to "work to develop technology to scan encrypted messages as a last resort."
[14]UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted chat, admits it's not 'feasible'
[15]Last rites for the UK's Online Safety Bill, an idea too stupid to notice it's dead
[16]Now Apple takes a bite out of encryption-bypassing 'spy clause' in UK internet law
[17]Online Safety Bill age checks? We won't do 'em, says Wikipedia
We don't want to hurt privacy, claims gov.UK
In a [18]statement , the government said it wanted tech giants to develop their own systems for detecting illegal content without compromising privacy.
"The government is not requiring companies to use 'off the shelf' products and where appropriate encourages firms to use their vast engineering and technical resources to develop solutions that work for their own platforms. Technical solutions should be designed with a particular focus on safeguarding people's right to privacy and data protection," it said.
[19]Speaking to the BBC , Meredith Whittaker, president of Signal and an outspoken critic of the bill, said the company was "more optimistic than we were when we began engaging with the UK government."
She also warned that the government should show a commitment that the "unchecked and unprecedented power" in the bill could not be used to undermine private communications.
Ben Packer, partner at law firm Linklaters, said the Online Safety Bill was vast in its scope and application.
"When in force, it will impose a broad range of obligations on social media platforms, search engines and other services that facilitate contact between their users. These online platforms will be subject to new obligations concerning illegal content or harmful content that may be accessed by children," he said.
"The bill tackles many of the same underlying issues that the European Union's Digital Services Act does – but in a very different way. With the DSA having recently come into effect for the largest platforms, many online services are already thinking about how to adapt their compliance processes to meet the requirements of both the DSA and OSB – and, indeed, the myriad other content regulation regimes coming into effect globally."
Packer noted that Ofcom was already prepared to enforce the bill, given that government had provided it with pre-legislative funding to pay for more than 300 staff from the industry and a range of other regulators and law enforcement bodies. "Ofcom have published a detailed roadmap for the Online Safety Bill taking effect and are promising to move quickly as soon as the bill completes its passage through Parliament," he said. ®
Get our [20]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/29/apple_online_safety_bill_opposition/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZQsXI0bFYr6@9hZkNEL2awAAA08&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/52620/documents/3938
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQsXI0bFYr6@9hZkNEL2awAAA08&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/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQsXI0bFYr6@9hZkNEL2awAAA08&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-makes-internet-safer-as-online-safety-bill-finished-and-ready-to-become-law
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/uk_government_clause_online_safety_bill/
[8] https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2023-09-06/debates/4AC6A32E-0C53-46C7-A714-AD4165C484D7/OnlineSafetyBill
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQsXI0bFYr6@9hZkNEL2awAAA08&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/today-uk-parliament-undermined-privacy-security-and-freedom-all-internet-users
[11] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/uk-government-knows-how-extreme-online-safety-bill
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQsXI0bFYr6@9hZkNEL2awAAA08&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-minister-says-position-encryption-not-changed-2023-09-07/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/07/uk_government_clause_online_safety_bill/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/21/opinion_column_monday/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2023/06/29/apple_online_safety_bill_opposition/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/28/online_safety_bill_age_checks/
[18] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/end-to-end-encryption-and-child-safety/end-to-end-encryption-and-child-safety
[19] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66854618
[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Blighty seems determined to cut itself off from the rest of the world
And don't think for a second that Starmer will ride in to save the day.
Re: Blighty seems determined to cut itself off from the rest of the world
Anyone old enough to remember the clipper chip?
This isn't new and it will keep happening and people will continue to ignore it.
Why?
Because virtually no one knows this was on the cards - it's not really been covered by "the main-stream media", and, even if it is, people fall for the "think of the children" quotes.
I tried to get my (Conservative) MP to engage with me on this, but he never even replied. Time to submit a formal complaint, I think.
Will be tricky at the next election - do I vote the ignorant incompetents to the left, or the entitled incompetents to the right?
Re: Why?
Since it can't and won't be done, the question is really "Which bunch of incompetents will waste more money trying?"
Re: Why?
It can and it will.
"A notice can be issued only where technically feasible and where technology has been accredited as meeting minimum standards of accuracy in detecting only child sexual abuse and exploitation content orders to scan user files"
Such a notice could be served on Apple, who demonstrated such technology two years ago, and by extension can be served on everyone else, because Apple have proved it is technically feasible.
You should therefore expect your WhatsApp and Facetime clients to have government-mandated background content scanning shortly after this bill becomes law. It will of course only be scanning for child porn. Initially.
Could these platforms disclaim being social media, and say they are purely private communication? Given how WhatsApp is famously being used for disseminating information about the progress of the war in Ukraine, I don't think they will be able to argue that one.
We could hope that Signal and friends follow through on their threats to withdraw their services in the UK. Unfortunately, the warm fuzzy noises they are now making suggest that they won't.
Re: Why?
"We could hope that Signal and friends follow through on their threats to withdraw their services in the UK."
Since they stopped supporting bog standard SMS in the android client full stop, I stopped using them anyway. What I thought might end up as a decent WhatsApp replacement that I could use for everyone encrypted or not, has to my mind now shot itself in the foot. I even donated to them.
Re: Blighty seems determined to cut itself off from the rest of the world
'We' are not letting them do anything, 'they' are just riding roughshod over our civil rights and freedoms.
Lets see what happens when a promenant MP or someone rich enough gets their private comms exposed. Then we will see what light his sh*tstain of a law gets portraid in then...
... Michelle Donelan told newswire Reuters shortly after this that the government would, if necessary, require tech platforms to "work to develop technology to scan encrypted messages as a last resort."
Just what the governments of Iran, Russia, China, Belarus and every other despotic country would like. Because if you can scan for stuff the UK government doesn't like (CSAM, for now) you can scan for things other governments don't like. Pictures of Tiananmen square, gay dating messages, reports from Ukraine, that sort of thing.
And WhatsUp, Signal etc haven't pulled out. So, bluff called, government wins.
This needs royal assent before it becomes law. There is still time for the companies in question to pull out or do something although, realistically, what's the point? It's not technically possible to do what the law requires. Meta go to court over it, court rules against the Government as the law in it's current state is unworkable.
What's more though, it is typical of the current British mindset to think that the world can't survive without it. There are 2 billion active users on WhatsApp (as an example). There are 30 million active users in the UK. You'd think after Brexshit we'd have a bit of cop on about ourselves. But the penny is still falling it seems.
Ah, arbitrary legislation. Doncha loveit ?
I suspect that the nuclear option won't ever be used against the big boys. After all, someone has to tell us how great the Tories are.
But it will be used against anyone small enough to disappear in a puff of lawsuits.
The biggest surprise...
... is that no one in government has trotted out the old 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' excuse
Re: The biggest surprise...
Greater Manchester and PSNI might have something to say about that now...
Don't Understand......
.....but what do I know?.....
Everything I send is privately encrypted BEFORE it gets into email or WhatsApp or....!!
Everything I receive was privately encrypted BEFORE it got into email or WhatsApp or....!!
So....E2EE is doing double duty.......that's fantastic......but the backdoors used by GCHQ are delivering.......more encryption!!
Online Safety Bill.......looks like it's for other people!!!
Blighty seems determined to cut itself off from the rest of the world
This atrocious piece of legislation will only serve to further balkanise the Internet and assure that the UK's citizens remain the most spied upon in the western world.
Why do UK citizens keep letting your government take away your rights? They won't be giving them back any time.