UK Internet Censorship

With a theatrical flourish clamouring to the 'won't somebody think of the children' mob, Ofcom has proposed a set of censorship rules that demand strict age/ID verification for practically ever single website that allows users to post content. On top of that they are proposing the most onerous mountain of expensive red tape seen in the western world.

There are few clever slight of hands that drag most of the internet into the realm of strict age/ID verification. Ofcom argues that nearly all websites will have child users because 16 and 17 year old 'children' have more or less the same interests as adults and so there is no content that is not of interest to 'children'

And so all websites will have to offer content that is appropriate to all age children or else put in place strict age/ID verification to ensure that content is appropriate to age.

And at every stage of deciding website policy, Ofcom is demanding extensive justification of decision made and proof of data used in making decisions. The amount of risk assessments, documents, research, evidence required makes the 'health and safety' regime look like child's play.

On occasions in the consultation documents Ofcom acknowledges that this will impose a massive administrative burden, but swats away criticism by noting that is the fault of the Online Safety Act law itself, and not Ofcom's fault.

 

Comment: Online Safety proposals could cause new harms

See article from openrightsgroup.org

Ofcom's consultation on safeguarding children online exposes significant problems regarding the proposed implementation of age-gating measures. While aimed at protecting children from digital harms, the proposed measures introduce risks to cybersecurity, privacy and freedom of expression.

Ofcom's proposals outline the implementation of age assurance systems, including photo-ID matching, facial age estimation, and reusable digital identity services, to restrict access to popular platforms like Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and Google that might contain content deemed harmful to children.

Open Rights Group warns that these measures could inadvertently curtail individuals' freedom of expression while simultaneously exposing them to heightened cybersecurity risks.

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group, said:

Adults will be faced with a choice: either limit their freedom of expression by not accessing content, or expose themselves to increased security risks that will arise from data breaches and phishing sites.

Some overseas providers may block access to their platforms from the UK rather than comply with these stringent measures.

We are also concerned that educational and help material, especially where it relates to sexuality, gender identity, drugs and other sensitive topics may be denied to young people by moderation systems.

Risks to children will continue with these measures. Regulators need to shift their approach to one that empowers children to understand the risks they may face, especially where young people may look for content, whether it is meant to be available to them or not.

Open Rights Group underscores the necessity for privacy-friendly standards in the development and deployment of age-assurance systems mandated by the Online Safety Act. Killock notes, Current data protection laws lack the framework to pre-emptively address the specific and novel cybersecurity risks posed by these proposals.

Open Rights Group urges the government to prioritize comprehensive solutions that incorporate parental guidance and education rather than relying largely on technical measures.

Ofcom writes:

Ofcom is seeking evidence to inform our codes of practice and guidance on the additional duties that will apply to some of the most widely used online sites and apps -- designated as categorised services - under the Online Safety Act.

Under the new laws, all in-scope tech firms must put in place appropriate safety measures to protect users from online harms. In addition, some online services will have to comply with extra requirements if they fall into one of three categories, known as Category 1, 2A or 2B.

These extra duties include giving users more tools to control what content they see, ensuring protections for news publisher and journalistic content, preventing fraudulent advertising and producing transparency reports. Different duties apply, depending on which category a service falls into.

The Act requires us to produce codes of practice and guidance outlining the steps that companies can take to comply with these additional duties. We are inviting evidence from industry, expert groups and other organisations to help inform and shape our approach. A formal consultation on the draft codes and guidance will follow in 2025, taking account of responses to today's call for evidence. Advice to Government on categorisation thresholds

Alongside this, we have also today published our advice to Government on the thresholds which would determine whether or not a service falls into Category 1, 2A or 2B. We advise that:

Category 1 (most onerous): should apply to services which meet either of the following conditions:

• Condition 1 - uses a content recommender system; and has more than 34 million UK users on the user-to-user part of its service, representing around 50% of the UK population;

• Condition 2 - allows users to forward or reshare user-generated content; and uses a content recommender system; and has more than 7 million UK users on the user-to-user part of its service, representing circa 10% of the UK population.

Category 2A: should apply to services which meet both of the following criteria:

• is a search service, but not vertical search service

• has more than 7 million UK users on the search engine part of its service, representing circa 10% of the UK population.

Category 2B: should apply to services which meet both of the following criteria:

• allows users to send direct messages;

• and has more than 3 million UK users on the user-to-user part of the service, representing circa 5% of the UK population.

Taking our advice into consideration, the Secretary of State must set the threshold conditions in secondary legislation. Once passed, we will then gather information, as needed, from regulated services and produce a published register of categorised services.

Abusers, trolls, and predators online now face a fleet of tough new jailable offences from Wednesday 31 January, as offences for cyberflashing, sending death threats, and epilepsy-trolling are written into the statute book after the Online Safety Act gained Royal Assent.

These new criminal offences will protect people from a wide range of abuse and harm online, including threatening messages, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images known as revenge porn, and sending fake news that aims to cause non-trivial physical or psychological harm.

Dubbed Zach's law, a new offence will also mean online trolls that send or show flashing images electronically with the intention of causing harm to people with epilepsy will be held accountable for their actions and face prison.

Following the campaigning of Love Island star Georgia Harrison, bitter ex-partners and other abusers who share, or threaten to share, intimate images on or offline without the consent of those depicted will face jail time under new offences from today.

Those found guilty of the base offence of sharing an intimate image could be in prison for up to 6 months, or 2 years if it is proven the perpetrator also intended to cause distress, alarm or humiliation, or shared the image to obtain sexual gratification.

Cyberflashing on dating apps, AirDrop and other platforms will also result in perpetrators facing up to two years behind bars where it is done to gain sexual gratification, or to cause alarm, distress or humiliation.

Sending death threats or threatening serious harm online will also carry a jail sentence of up to five years under a new threatening communications offence that will completely outlaw appalling threats made online that would be illegal if said in person.

A new false communications offence will bring internet trolls to justice by outlawing the intentional sending of false information that could cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to users online. This new offence will bolster the government's strong commitment to clamping down on dangerous disinformation and election interference online.

In the wake of sickening content, often targeted at children, that encourages users to self-harm, a new offence will mean the individuals that post content encouraging or assisting serious self-harm could face up to 5 years behind bars.

While much of the Online Safety Act's protections are intended to hold tech companies and social media platforms to account for the content hosted on their sites, these new offences will apply directly to the individuals sending threatening or menacing messages and bring justice directly to them.

Some of the offences that commence from today will be further bolstered too, when the wide-ranging Criminal Justice Bill completes its passage through Parliament.

Conservative MP Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) was among Tory backbenchers who said age ratings used by video on-demand platforms should be mandated to use either British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) or equivalent standards.

The Tory MP, a member of the right wing New Conservatives faction, told the Commons the watershed for adult content has become increasingly redundant in the streaming era as MPs continued their consideration of the Media Bill, which aims to impose broadcast TV censorship rules on internet streaming companies. Cates said:

We urgently need to apply the same standards of child protection to on-demand video as we do to cinema releases, physical DVDs and linear TV.

She warned the current position of the Bill is to shy away from setting that minimum standard for age ratings, and said Netflix and Amazon Prime have both voluntarily set up partnerships to include BBFC ratings on their content. But the reluctance of Disney Plus and others to follow suit shows why this kind of regulation is needed, she said.

Gary Streeter, the Conservative MP for South West Devon, tabled an amendment to the Media Bill setting out objective criteria for age ratings, targeted at streaming services like Disney.

While he commended Netflix, Apple and Amazon for using BBFC ratings, he added:

The current ratings free-for-all has seen Disney Plus classify scenes of sexual abuse as suitable for nine-year-olds, scenes of graphic misogynistic violence or offensive antisemitic stereotypes as suitable for 12-year-olds, and that is lower than they classify some of their Star Wars or superhero content.