LONDON—The Online Safety Bill proposed before the Parliament of the United Kingdom is in its final stages before likely being implemented as a new law in spite of major opposition from international tech giants, IT experts and digital rights watchdogs alike.
At every corner of the English-speaking internet, the Online Safety Bill will have some degree of impact—for better or worse. From texting apps to how you watch porn, the fallout will be felt internationally. It is currently on a third reading in the House of Lords, where it is likely to be adopted as it was in the House of Commons. From there, amendments to the bill will be considered and attached to the final version, which presumably will be granted a royal ascent as a new law.
If the Online Safety Bill passes, Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will have accomplished the impossible for other Conservative Party PMs, including former Tory leaders of His Majesty’s Government like Teresa May and Boris Johnson. Sunak assumed the position of prime minister announcing his support for the bill, further encouraging the proponents of the sweeping measure.
Additionally, the Online Safety Bill grants Ofcom (the Office of Communications) the statutory and regulatory authority to impose fines on companies that violate legal provisions in the bill.
Despite its potential for becoming law, members of the international technology industry and a slate of civil society groups from several countries voice their opposition to the Online Safety Bill for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the bill significantly harms the ability of web platforms to engage in encryption. A group of 68 IT security and privacy academics issued a coalition letter in opposition to the Online Safety Bill due to what they collectively call a "threat" to web users.
“As independent information security and cryptography researchers, we build technologies that keep people safe online,” the researchers warn in the letter published earlier this month. “It is in this capacity that we see the need to stress that the safety provided by these essential technologies is now under threat in the Online Safety Bill.” All 68 researchers are affiliated with leading institutions across the United Kingdom and are active in shaping corporate and governmental policies on technology and information security in all areas of the world. And, the concern isn't relegated to a few dozen researchers in higher educational and academic spaces.
Mega corporations like Apple have issued advisories that they might withdraw certain services, such as iMessage, from the United Kingdom market entirely. Powers in the Online Safety Bill grant regulators the ability to tear down encryption. This led Apple, among other companies that develop end-to-end encrypted messaging services, to submit filings to the Parliament as an official stakeholder in opposition to the bill. The bill would require these companies to scan for illegal content, including child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in violation of inferred privacy rights. Due to this power, representatives for Signal and Meta-owned WhatsApp expressed opposition. Leadership for Signal also threatened a total withdrawal from the United Kingdom.
Carly Page, a reporter for TechCrunch, pointed a few weeks ago to a looming mass exodus of widely used encryption services from the United Kingdom. She refered to the researchers, Apple, other companies, and civil society groups jumping ship. For example, the United Kingdom’s chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation said that it would not follow certain provisions of the Online Safety Bill and choose to additionally pull out of the local market. If Wikimedia UK follows through, users would be blocked indefinitely from accessing one of the most popular, open-sourced reference providers in the world.
Digital rights organization the Open Rights Group (ORG) issued a legal opinion criticizing Sunak’s government and the imminent adoption of the Online Safety Bill. “Given the scale of use of these services, it will effectively introduce a form of mass surveillance and all experts agree that the necessary technological solution will compromise end-to-end encryption,” said ORG policy manager Dr. Monica Horten. “The powers would also enable Ofcom to give similar mandates to public social media platforms and other services.”
During a video panel hosted by technology news outlet Broadband Breakfast, several experts expressed concern about the intended and unintended consequences of the Online Safety Bill.
Matthew Lesh, the director of public policy and communications for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a center-right public policy think tank based in the United Kingdom, said that the bill is nothing more than a “recipe for censorship on an industrial, mechanical scale.” Lesh added that companies with large user bases in the U.K. will simply shift their services elsewhere. End-user impacts would be expected, too. Twitter, now under the Elon Musk-backed branding of X, is an example of this. In an effort to comply with the European Union’s Digital Services Act, Twitter chose to throttle certain types of content and speech on the internet in order to produce results that correspond to the requirements of the act, argued Amy Peikoff during the panel. Peikoff is the chief policy officer of a right-wing “alt-tech” web video streaming platform called BitChute.
Other provisions that specifically apply to adult entertainment and porn sites include age checks like those being implemented in France and several U.S. states, including Utah, Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and other states. Some of these states have age verification laws so invasive that MindGeek-owned Pornhub and their network of websites and studios geo-blocked millions of users with IP addresses in these jurisdictions. The Online Safety Bill would also require anonymous users to verify their identities to upload content to streaming sites, including porn sites. And, like in California, “cyberflashing” is criminalized via social media sites and dating apps. Cyberflashing is essentially sending someone an unsolicited nude image without consent.
