https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/uks-online-safety-bill-attacks-free-speech-and-encryption Skip to main content * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers + Podcast * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + HTTPS Everywhere + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Email updates on news, actions, and events in your area. Join EFF Lists * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks Electronic Frontier Foundation Donate Electronic Frontier Foundation * About + Contact + Press + People + Opportunities * Issues + Free Speech + Privacy + Creativity and Innovation + Transparency + International + Security * Our Work + Deeplinks Blog + Press Releases + Events + Legal Cases + Whitepapers + Podcast * Take Action + Action Center + Electronic Frontier Alliance + Volunteer * Tools + Privacy Badger + HTTPS Everywhere + Surveillance Self-Defense + Certbot + Atlas of Surveillance + Cover Your Tracks + Crocodile Hunter * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give + Membership FAQ * Donate + Donate to EFF + Shop + Other Ways to Give * Search form Search [ ] The UK Online Safety Bill Attacks Free Speech and Encryption DEEPLINKS BLOG By Joe Mullin August 5, 2022 A multi-colored bullhorn icon surrounded by grey-blue hexagons The UK Online Safety Bill Attacks Free Speech and Encryption Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link A multi-colored bullhorn icon surrounded by grey-blue hexagons The UK government has had more than a year to revise its Online Safety Bill into a proposal that wouldn't harm users' basic rights. It has failed to do so, and the bill should be scrapped. The current bill is a threat to free expression, and it undermines the encryption that we all rely on for security and privacy online. The government intended to advance and vote on the Online Safety Bill last month, but the scheduled vote was postponed until a new Prime Minister of the UK can be chosen. Members of Parliament should take this opportunity to insist that the bill be tossed out entirely. Subjective Standards for Censorship If the Online Safety Bill passes, the UK government will be able to directly silence user speech, and even imprison those who publish messages that it doesn't like. The bill empowers the UK's Office of Communications (OFCOM) to levy heavy fines or even block access to sites that offend people. We said last year that those powers raise serious concerns about freedom of expression. Since then, the bill has been amended, and it's gotten worse. People shouldn't be fined or thrown in jail because a government official finds their speech offensive. In the U.S., the First Amendment prevents that. But UK residents can already be punished for online statements that a court deems "grossly offensive," under the 2003 Communications Act. If the Online Safety Bill passes, it would expand the potential scope of such cases. It would also significantly deviate from the new E.U. internet bill, the Digital Services Act, which avoids transforming social networks and other services into censorship tools. Section 10 of the revised bill even authorizes jail time--up to two years--for anyone whose social media message could cause "psychological harm amounting to at least serious distress." The message doesn't even have to cause harm. If the authorities believe that the the offender intended to cause harm, and that there was a substantial risk of harm, that's enough for a prosecution. There's also a separate crime of transmitting "false communications," punishable by fines or up to 51 weeks of imprisonment. The problem here should be obvious: these are utterly subjective criteria. People disagree all the time about what constitutes a false statement. Determining what statements have a "real and substantial risk" of causing psychological harm is the epitome of a subjective question, as is who might have a "reasonable excuse" for making such a statement. The apparent lack of legal certainty casts doubt on whether the UK's Online Safety Act meets international human rights standards. The few exceptions in the section appear to be grants to large media concerns. For instance, recognized news publishers are exempt from the section on communications offenses. So is anyone "showing a film made for cinema to members of the public." The exceptions are telling. The UK's new proposed censors at OFCOM are making it clear they'll never enforce against corporate media concerns; it's only small media creators, activists, citizen journalists, and everyday users who will be subject to the extra scrutiny and accompanying punishments. Online platforms will also face massive liability if they don't meet OFCOM's deadlines with regards to removing images and messages relating to terrorism or child abuse. But it is extremely difficult for human reviewers to correctly discern between activism, counter-speech, and extremist content. Algorithms do an even worse job. When governments around the world pressure websites to quickly remove content they deem "terrorist," it results in censorship. The first victims of this type of censorship are usually human rights groups seeking to document abuses and war. And whilst the bill does require online service providers consider the importance of journalistic freedom of expression, the safeguards are onerous and weak. Another Attack on Encryption The bill also empowers OFCOM to order online services to "use accredited technology"--in other words, government-approved software--to find child abuse images (Section 104). Those orders can be issued against online services that use end-to-end encryption, meaning they currently don't have any technical way to inspect user messages. This part of the bill is a clear push by the bill's sponsors to get companies to either abandon or compromise their encryption systems. Unfortunately, we've seen this pattern before. Unable to get public support for the idea of police scanning every message online, some lawmakers in liberal democracies have turned to work-arounds. They have claimed certain types of encryption backdoors are needed to inspect files for the worst crimes, like child abuse. And they've claimed, falsely, that certain methods of inspecting user files and messages, like client-side scanning, don't break encryption at all. We saw this in the U.S. in 2020 with the EARN IT Act, last year with Apple's proposed client-side scanning system, and this year we have seen a similar system proposed in the E.U. These types of systems create more vulnerabilities that endanger the rights of all users, including children. Security experts and NGOs have spoken clearly about this issue, and asked for the anti-encryption sections of this bill to be withdrawn, but the bill's sponsors have unfortunately not listened. If it passes, the censorious, anti-encryption Online Safety Bill won't just affect the UK--it will be a blueprint for repression around the world. The next UK Prime Minister should abandon the bill in its entirety. If they won't, Parliament should vote to reject it. Related Issues Free Speech International Government Social Media Blocking Tags free speech privacy encryption Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Join EFF Lists Join Our Newsletter! Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Related Updates A multi-colored bullhorn icon surrounded by grey-blue hexagons Deeplinks Blog by David Greene, Paige Collings, Christoph Schmon | August 12, 2022 Online Platforms Should Stop Partnering with Government Agencies to Remove Content Government involvement in content moderation raises serious human rights concerns in every context, and these concerns are further troubling when the involvement originates with law enforcement. We recently filed a comment with the Meta Oversight Board urging it to treat this issue seriously.When sites cooperate with government agencies, it... EFF Cat Speaking Freely Deeplinks Blog by Mukund Rathi | August 5, 2022 Victory! Federal Court Upholds First Amendment Protections for Student's Off-Campus Social Media Post Students should not have to fear expulsion for expressing themselves on social media after school and off-campus, but that is just what happened to the plaintiff in C1.G v. Siegfried. Last month, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the student's expulsion violated his First Amendment rights. a female figure with ultrasound revealing security icon Deeplinks Blog by Katharine Trendacosta | July 28, 2022 Abortion Information Is Coming Down Across Social Media. What Is Happening and What Next. Reports have surfaced about the removal of information about abortion from social media. Unfortunately, none of it is unprecedented. Platforms like Facebook and Instagram have long maintained broad and vague community standards that allow them to remove content with little recourse.What Is HappeningAs reported by Vice and followed up... A person holding a megaphone that another person speaks through Deeplinks Blog by Meri Baghdasaryan | July 21, 2022 New Amendments to Intermediary Rules threaten Free Speech in India EFF joined the Association of Progressive Communications (APC) and other digital rights organizations from around the world, urging the Indian government to withdraw its new amendment to Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code (2021 IT Rules). EFF has already expressed its concerns about IT Rules' chilling... [Twitter-censored] Deeplinks Blog by Jason Kelley | July 20, 2022 Nigerian Twitter Ban Declared Unlawful by Court The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court has ruled that a seven-month ban on Twitter by Nigerian authorities in 2021 was unlawful and infringed freedom of expression and access to media. The court, which is a political and economic union of fifteen West African countries, has... [OG-Encryption-DefendEncryption] Deeplinks Blog by Meri Baghdasaryan | July 18, 2022 EFF and Partners Urge the Indian Government to Keep End-to-End Encryption Alive In a letter to the Indian Government, EFF and partner digital rights organizations from around the world called on the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to withdraw the so-called traceability requirement under its Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code (2021 IT Rules). The Rules compel private end-to-end... [anti-slapp-banner-2] Deeplinks Blog by Joe Mullin | July 11, 2022 State by State, We're Making Progress Against Anti-Speech Lawsuits The First Amendment grants us all the right to say our piece. The government can't shut down our rights to speak out, protest, and publish. At EFF, we've been making sure that we have strong First Amendment rights in the online world for more than 30 years. Government repression isn't... Necessary & Proportionate logo Deeplinks Blog by Meri Baghdasaryan | July 8, 2022 EFF and Partners Call on the Indonesia Government to Repeal Invasive Content Moderation Rules EFF joined SAFEnet and a dozen digital rights organizations in urging the Indonesian Minister of Communication and Information to repeal its invasive content moderation rules, known as the Ministerial Regulation Number 5 (MR5) and its amendment, Ministerial Regulation Number 10 (MR10). EFF has already sounded the alarm about... A person holding a megaphone that another person speaks through Deeplinks Blog by David Greene | June 21, 2022 When "Jawboning" Creates Private Liability A (Very) Narrow Path to Holding Social Media Companies Legally Liable for Collaborating with Government in Content ModerationFor the last several years we have seen numerous arguments that social media platforms are "state actors" that "must carry" all user speech. According to this argument, they are legally required to publish... A figure shouts through a megaphone being held by another figure. Deeplinks Blog by Christoph Schmon, Haley Pedersen | June 8, 2022 Platform Liability Trends Around the Globe: Moving Forward Today, as global efforts to change long-standing intermediary liability laws continue, we now use a set of questions to guide the way we look at such proposals. We approach new platform regulation proposals with three primary questions in mind: Are intermediary liability regulations the problem? Is the proposed solution going... Join Our Newsletter! Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address [ ] Postal Code (optional) [ ] Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation: [ ] Don't fill out this field (required) [ ] [Submit] Thanks, you're awesome! Please check your email for a confirmation link. Oops something is broken right now, please try again later. Share It Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Copy link Related Issues Free Speech International Government Social Media Blocking Related Tags free speech privacy encryption Back to top EFF Home Follow EFF: * twitter * facebook * instagram * youtube * flicker * rss Contact * General * Legal * Security * Membership * Press About * Calendar * Volunteer * Victories * History * Internships * Jobs * Staff * Diversity & Inclusion Issues * Free Speech * Privacy * Creativity & Innovation * Transparency * International * Security Updates * Blog * Press Releases * Events * Legal Cases * Whitepapers * EFFector Newsletter Press * Press Contact Donate * Join or Renew Membership Online * One-Time Donation Online * Shop * Other Ways to Give * Copyright (CC BY) * Trademark * Privacy Policy * Thanks JavaScript license information *