Internet News

To: Chloe Smith, Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
cc: Tom Tugendhat, Minister of State for Security, Home Office Paul Scully, Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay

Dear Ms Smith, 

We are over 80 national and international civil society organisations, academics and cyberexperts. We represent a wide range of perspectives including digital human rights and technology.

We are writing to you to raise our concerns about the serious threat to the security of private and encrypted messaging posed by the UK's proposed Online Safety Bill (OSB).

The Online Safety Bill is a deeply troubling legislative proposal. If passed in its present form, the UK could become the first liberal democracy to require the routine scanning of people's private chat messages, including chats that are secured by end-to-end encryption. As over 40 million UK citizens and 2 billion people worldwide rely on these services, this poses a significant risk to the security of digital communication services not only in the UK, but also internationally.

End-to-end encryption ensures the security of communications for everyone on a network. It is designed so that no-one, including the platform provider, can read or alter the messages. The confidentiality between sender and recipient is completely preserved. That's why the United Nations, several human rights groups, and anti-human trafficking organisations alike have emphasised that encryption is a vital human rights tool.

In order to comply with the Online Safety Bill, platform providers would have to break that protection either by removing it or by developing work-arounds. Any form of work-around risks compromising the security of the messaging platform, creating back-doors, and other dangerous ways and means for malicious actors and hostile states to corrupt the system. This would put all users in danger.

The UK government has indicated its intention for providers to use a technology that would scan chats on people's phone and devices -- known as client-side scanning. The UK government's assertion that client-side scanning will not compromise the privacy of messages contradicts the significant evidence of cyber-security experts around the world. This software intercepts chat messages before they are encrypted, and as the user is uploading their images or text, and therefore confidentiality of messages cannot be guaranteed. It would most likely breach human rights law in the UK and internationally.

Serious concerns have also been raised about similar provisions in the EU's proposed Child Sexual Abuse Regulation, which an independent expert study warns is in contradiction to human rights rules. French, Irish and Austrian parliamentarians have all also warned of severe threats to human rights and of undermining encryption.

Moreover, the scanning software would have to be pre-installed on people's phones, without their permission or full awareness of the severe privacy and security implications. The underlying databases can be corrupted by hostile actors, meaning that individual phones would become vulnerable to attack. The breadth of the measures proposed in the Online Safety Bill -- which would infringe the rights to privacy to the same extent for the internet's majority of legitimate law-abiding users as it would for potential criminals -- means that the measures cannot be considered either necessary or proportionate.

The inconvenient truth is that it is not possible to scan messages for bad things without infringing on the privacy of lawful messages. It is not possible to create a backdoor that only works for good people and that cannot be exploited by bad people.

Privacy and free expression rights are vital for all citizens everywhere, in every country, to do their jobs, raise their voices, and hold power to account without arbitrary intrusion, persecution or repression. End-to-end encryption provides vital security that allows them to do that without arbitrary interference. People in conflict zones who rely on secure encrypted communications to be able to speak safely to friends and family as well as for national security. Journalists around the world who rely on the confidential channels of encrypted chat, can communicate to sources and upload their stories in safety.

Children, too, need these rights, as emphasised by UNICEF based on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. Child safety and privacy are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually reinforcing. Indeed, children are less safe without encrypted communications, as they equally rely on secure digital experiences free from their data being harvested or conversations intercepted. Online content scanning alone cannot hope to fish out the serious cases of exploitation, which require a whole-of-society approach. The UK government must invest in education, judicial reform, social services, law enforcement and other critical resources to prevent abuse before it can reach the point of online dissemination, thereby prioritising harm prevention over retrospective scanning.

As an international community, we are deeply concerned that the UK will become the weak link in the global system. The security risk will not be confined within UK borders. It is difficult to envisage how such a destructive step for the security of billions of users could be justified.

The UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that the UK will maintain freedom, peace and security around the world. With that in mind, we urge you to ensure that end-to-end encrypted services will be removed from the scope of the Bill and that the privacy of people's confidential communications will be upheld.

Signed,

Access Now, ARTICLE 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression, Asociatia pentru Tehnologie Ui Internet (ApTI), Associação Portuguesa para a Promoção da Segurança da Informação (AP2SI), Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Big Brother Watch, Centre for Democracy and Technology, Chaos Computer Club (CCC), Citizen D / Drzavljan D, Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), Community NeHUBs Africa, cyberstorm.mu, Defend Digital Me, CASM at Demos, Digitalcourage, Digitale Gesellschaft, DNS Africa Media and Communications, Electronic Frontier Finland, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Electronic Frontier Norway, Epicenter.works, European Center for Not-for-Profit Law, European Digital Rights (EDRi), European Sex Workers Rights Association (ESWA), Fair Vote, Fight for the Future, Foundation for Information Policy Research, Fundación Cibervoluntarios, Global Partners Digital, Granitt, Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights, Homo Digitalis, Ikigai Innovation Initiative, Internet Society, Interpeer gUG, ISOC Brazil -- Brazilian Chapter of the Internet Society, ISOC Ghana, ISOC India Hyderabad Chapter, ISOC Venezuela, IT-Pol, JCA-Net (Japan), Kijiji Yeetu, La Quadrature du Net, Liberty, McEvedys Solicitors and Attorneys Ltd, Open Rights Group, OpenMedia, OPTF, Privacy and Access Council of Canada, Privacy International, Ranking Digital Rights, Statewatch, SUPERRR Lab, Tech for Good Asia, UBUNTEAM, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK

Professor Paul Bernal, Nicholas Bohm, Dr Duncan Campbell, Alan Cox, Ray Corrigan, Professor Angela Daly, Dr Erin Ferguson, Wendy M. Grossman, Dr Edina Harbinja, Dr Julian Huppert, Steve Karmeinsky, Dr Konstantinos Komaitis, Professor Douwe Korff, Petr Kucera, Mark A. Lane, Christian de Larrinaga, Mark Lizar, Dr Brenda McPhail, Alec Muffett, Riana Pferfferkorn, Simon Phipps, Dr Birgit Schippers, Peter Wells, Professor Alan Woodward

A post on fitness company Team RH Fitness's Facebook page, seen on 14 February 2023, featured an image of the top half of a man facing the camera wearing a shirt and jacket. The man held a pair of bare legs over his shoulders as though holding a person upside down, with their feet pointed towards the ceiling with text that stated WINE, DINE, £6.99. The number six and the first number nine were highlighted. The image was accompanied by a caption that stated, Wine, dine, and £6.99 [three laughing emojis].

The ASA received five complaints.

The complainants challenged whether the ad was offensive, because it objectified women.

Team RH Fitness said the ad was posted on Valentine's Day with the purpose of being humorous and to demonstrate what consumers could spend their money on when considering romantically related purchases to celebrate the day. They told us that they limited the visual display of sexual activity and used implied sexual activity, imagery, and wording. Furthermore, they believed that the ad was compliant with Facebook's Community Standards. They explained that their Facebook audience is largely made up of women aged between 25 and 54 years old living in the UK and there were numerous comments left on the post from people who found the ad funny.

Facebook acknowledged the complaints but made no further comment.

ASA Assessment: Complaints upheld

The ASA acknowledged that only users of 18 years and over were able to download the Team RH Fitness app. We further acknowledged that the ad was posted on Valentine's Day and that comments left on the post indicated that some people had understood the intended humour. However, the image was likely to be recognised as portraying a sex act between a man and a woman, and the sexual nature of the image was compounded by the highlighted 69.

The woman had her bare legs over the man's shoulders and neither her torso nor face could be seen. We considered that the positioning of the woman in this way to be objectifying since her inclusion in the ad served only as a faceless object used for sexual purposes.

Because it included an objectified woman in a sexual position, we concluded that the ad was likely to cause serious offence.

Virginia is the next jurisdiction in the United States to implement a law that requires all adult entertainment websites to have age verification measures in place or face civil action. Similar to age verification laws implemented in states like Utah and Louisiana, Senate Bill (SB) 1515 was adopted with virtually universal support from lawmakers in both of the state's major political parties. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed SB 1515 into law at the behest of parental rights groups and organizations that believe that age verification mandates are the best way to prevent minors from viewing age-restricted content, like pornographic sites.

Industry trade group the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has filed suit in federal district courts in both Utah and Louisiana seeking to render the age verification laws in those states unconstitutional on the grounds of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. FSC director of public affairs Mike Stabile characterized the law in Virginia as dangerous and and said the organization has reached out to Gov. Youngkin with little results.

The Virginia law suffers from the same technological and constitutional problems as the laws in Utah and Louisiana, Stabile told AVN in an email:

Adult consumers shouldn't have to risk surveillance or secure government approval in order to view legal content in the privacy of their own home.

We are looking at potential suits in every state that has passed this law, including Virginia.

Adult industry attorney Corey Silverstein told AVN that the new Virgina law is foolish.

Virginia's law, much like Louisiana, Utah, and others are not going to survive First Amendment challenges. While these politicians are patting themselves on the back for pushing through these blatant speech suppression tools, they seem to have forgotten about the First Amendment that they swore to protect when they took office.

Virginia's age verification law goes into effect on July 1, 2023.

Adult industry trade group the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has announced that it has filed a lawsuit in Louisiana challenging the law that went into effect there January 1 of this year requiring age-verification to access online adult content.

Free Speech Coalition, the advocacy organization for the adult industry, has filed a legal challenge in Louisiana over the state's unconstitutional age-verification law. The Louisiana law gives the state the power to fine sites with adult content up to $5,000 per day, a direct violation of the First Amendment. FSC filed a similar suit against the state of Utah in May.

Joining Free Speech Coalition in filing the challenge are Elizabeth Hanson, a military veteran and spouse of an active-duty Coast Guard member residing in Slidell; Andrea Barrica, founder of the sex education site O.school; journalist, educator, and content creator Charyn Ryn Pfeuffer; and fan platform JustFor.Fans. The parties are represented by Jeffrey Sandman of Webb Daniel Friedlander LLP and D. Gill Sperlein of the Law Office of D. Gill Sperlein.

These laws give the state the power to harass and censor legal businesses, says Alison Boden, Executive Director of Free Speech Coalition. We, of course, support keeping minors from accessing adult content, but allowing the state to suppress certain speech by requiring invasive and burdensome systems that consumers refuse to engage with is simply state censorship.

Seven states have passed laws requiring sites with substantial amounts of material harmful to minors to check users' government ID or other age and identity verification information in order to access content. But consumers have been reluctant to do so, with more than 90% of users abandoning sites that comply with such laws.

Last year, Louisiana passed a law allowing for a private right of action against adult sites without such age-verification for consumers, and other states followed suit. In June, Governor John Bel Edwards signed a new law giving the government the power to fine sites directly, as much as $1M per year.

The First Amendment protects our right to freely access legal content and ideas without government interference, says Jeff Sandman, a New Orleans-based counsel for the Free Speech Coalition. We're fighting not only for adult businesses but for the right of legal adults to use the internet without government surveillance. Showing your ID in a checkout lane is simply not the same as submitting it to a government database.

For decades, our industry has voluntarily and enthusiastically worked with filters that allow parents and others to easily block adult sites, says Boden. Those who wish to can do so easily, and the Supreme Court has ruled that this is preferable to government-mandated censorship. We are again asking the courts to reject these unreasonable and dangerous restrictions on a free internet.

Australia's eSafety Commissioner has made the decision not to register two of eight online censorship codes drafted by the online industry as they fail to provide appropriate mechanisms to deal with illegal and harmful content online.

New mandatory codes will cover five sections of the online industry and operate under Australia's Online Safety Act 2021. The codes require industry to take adequate steps to reduce the availability of seriously harmful online content, such as child sexual abuse and pro-terror material.

eSafety's decision not to register the Designated Internet Services (DIS) code, covering apps, websites, and file and photo storage services like Apple iCloud and Microsoft One Drive; and the Relevant Electronic Services (RES) code, covering dating sites, online games and instant messaging, is due to the failure of the codes to define appropriate snooping/surveillance mechanisms, which is a requirement for registration .

eSafety will now move to develop mandatory and enforceable industry standards for Relevant Electronic Services and Designated Internet Services.

The eSafety Commissioner has reserved her decision on a third code, the draft Search Engines code, covering online search over concerns it is no longer fit for purpose following recently announced developments in the field of generative AI and its integration into search engine functions. eSafety has requested that a revised Search Engines code be submitted within four weeks to address specific concerns we have raised.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said:

While I commend industry for their significant amendments following our final feedback on these world-first codes in February, these two codes still don't meet our minimum expectations.

For example, the Designated Internet Services code still doesn't require file and photo storage services like iCloud, Google Drive, or OneDrive to detect and flag known child sexual abuse material.

We know that online storage services like these are used to store and share child sexual abuse material and pro-terror material between offenders.

And the Relevant Electronic Services code also doesn't require email services and some partially encrypted messaging services to detect and flag this material either, even though we know there are proactive steps they can take to stem the already rampant sharing of illegal content.

Industry codes will come into effect six months from the date of registration while eSafety will begin the process of drafting industry standards for Designated Internet Services and Relevant Electronic Services.

Once a code or standard is in place, eSafety will be able to receive complaints and investigate potential breaches. An industry code or standard will be backed up by powers to ensure compliance including injunctions, enforceable undertakings, and maximum financial penalties of nearly $700,000 per day for continuing breaches.

The draft industry censorship codes submitted to eSafety on 31 March can be found at onlinesafety.org.au/codes .

The notable French adult company Dorcel is currently testing a double anonymity age verification solution designed by a French tech company. The Dorcel Group is testing an AV solution by GreenBadg. The report states that 10,000 visitors to Dorcel's site will be targeted as guinea pigs during the test period.

GreenBadg founder Jacky Lamraoui said that his company built its solution in consultation with French authorities, including media regulator ARCOM.

To access Dorcel sites, users must first register on GreenBadg by providing identification and a video selfie. Another company, IDNow will verify the ID, from which the date of birth is extracted, and confirm that the ID photo corresponds to the video selfie. The video selfie/ID photo facial comparison is performed by artificial intelligence, with a second validation done by a human.

Once verified, the user will receive a badge valid for three years, allowing them to scan a QR Code on the relevant site to certify they are over 18.

Reddit allows people to freely share and discuss content but that freedom sometime displeases others. In Denmark, several actors feel embarrassed by Reddit users who clip and share their nude scenes.

A Danish trade group Rights Alliance says that it's time for the platform to take responsibility. These comments from the Rights Alliance come in response to a revelation from the local radio program Kulturen . In a recent episode, it revealed that sexually revealing scenes were systematically shared on Reddit.

Kulturen reported hearing from 20 Danish actresses affected by this issue, which some describe as abuse and being molested. While they are fine with the original sex or nude scenes, being featured this way is not what they intended.

Actress Andrea Vagn Jensen, who has had one of her explicit scenes shared online, explains that there's a huge difference between appearing naked in a film and being posted on Reddit. She said:

It's just abuse. You deliver something for the production and the story, and then you end up being molested that way.

fellow actress Signe Egholm Olsen added:

It's crazy that some people feel entitled to do that, and what's just as crazy is that there are so many people who subscribe to it.

Rights Alliance reported the issue to the police, on behalf of the Danish Actors' Association and the respective rightsholders.

In response to the controversy, several clips were removed by Reddit, but that doesn't end the problem as the scenes can simply be re-uploaded.

The Rights Alliance responded urging Reddit to take its responsibilities seriously under Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive. Article 17 requires large platforms to ensure that copyright-infringing content does not reappear after it's removed. This can be achieved through upload and other censorship technologies, which are already in place on YouTube, Facebook, and elsewhere.

The French Connection is a 1971 USA action crime thriller by William Friedkin.
Starring Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider and Fernando Rey.  

Not cut by the BBFC or MPAA, but hit the news in 2023 when cut seemingly by Disney for a racial slur in a version used for streaming.

Summary Notes

William Friedkin's gritty police drama portrays two tough New York City cops trying to intercept a huge heroin shipment coming from France. An interesting contrast is established between 'Popeye' Doyle, a short-tempered alcoholic bigot who is nevertheless a hard-working and dedicated police officer, and his nemesis Alain Charnier, a suave and urbane gentleman who is nevertheless a criminal and one of the largest drug suppliers of pure heroin to North America. During the surveillance and eventual bust, Friedkin provides one of the most gripping and memorable car chase sequences ever filmed.

Versions

uncut run: 103:52s pal: 99:43s		UK: Uncut and BBFC 18 rated for strong violence and language: 2014 Twentieth Century Fox DVD 2008 Walt Disney Studios HE (RB) Blu-ray at UK Amazon #ad 2008 Walt Disney Studios HE R2 DVD at UK Amazon #ad 1997 Twentieth Century Fox VHS 1992 CBS/Fox VHS 1987 CBS/Fox VHS 1971 20th Century Fox cinema release
cut 6s		US:  Cut in 2023, presumably by Disney, for streaming on DIsney+ and the Criterion Channel The cut was to remove a 6s dialogue exchange between the detectives Jimmy Popeye Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy Cloudy Russo (Roy Scheider), which contains the word 'nigger': Doyle: You dumb guinea. Russo: How the hell did I know he had a knife? Doyle: Never trust a nigger. Russo: He coulda been white. Doyle: Never trust anyone.

China wants to restrict the use of local file-sharing services such as AirDrop and Bluetooth in a move that will expand its censorship machine.

The national internet censor has launched a month-long public consultation on the proposals. They want service providers to prevent the spread of unapproved information, among other things.

Bluetooth, AirDrop and such file-sharing services are crucial tools in China, where the  Great Firewall has resulted in one of the mostly tightly-controlled internet regimes. In recent years, anti-government protesters have often turned to AirDrop to organise and share their political demands.

AirDrop is especially popular among activists because it relies on Bluetooth connections between close-range devices, allowing them to share information with strangers without revealing their personal details or going through a centralised network that can be monitored and blocked.

Apple has released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts. Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.

Proposals unveiled by the Cyberspace Administration of China require users to prevent and resist the production, copying and distribution of undesirable information. Those who do not comply must be reported to the authorities, the draft regulations say. Users must also register with their real name before they can use these file-sharing services, and the service must be turned off by default.

Balancing the fundamental principles of free speech and expression with the regulation of technology, platforms, and content to promote fairness and safety presents a significant challenge to the censorship loving EU.

The European Union is striving to introduce new censorship rules during the trilogue discussions on EU Political Advertising regulations.

On the surface, it appears to be an attempt to introduce transparency, scrutiny, and accountability into the digital systems that are now deeply intertwined with our political processes. However, the current proposals, aimed at encompassing all aspects of digital political engagement, reveal mechanisms that will undermine freedom of speech.

As it stands, the proposals would cover any content with a political nature that could be considered advertising. This means that a journalist reporting on national elections and covering manifesto launches or policy initiatives could be classified as a political advertisement and subjected to these new rules.

Organisations like Index on Censorship, which express views on government actions through articles like this, could face moderation, regulation, and potential censorship.

Even well-known voices championing important issues, such as Greta Thunberg, could find themselves subject to European regulations for every tweet, Facebook post, or snap they share.

This not only stifles organisations' willingness to intervene or comment but also significantly narrows political debate. By covering anything that could be deemed a political advertisement, it encroaches on the private lives of citizens and compromises a free and independent press.

Another concern is the proposed flagging system, allowing anyone to flag content for platform review to determine if it falls under the new regulation. Platforms would be required to review flags within 48 hours. However, this transfer of responsibility to the opaque internal workings of tech giants raises questions.

How will they determine what constitutes political advertising, and why should they possess such power? Imposing an arbitrary 48-hour limit on this process may result in the removal of thousands of voices and opinions, particularly from marginalised communities, as platforms fear legal repercussions and penalties for non-compliance.

Texas is the latest American state to implement age verification rules for adult websites. The new law HB 1181 -- spearheaded by Republicans but enthusiastically supported by Democrats, creates a new criminal liability for any website when more than one-third of its content is sexual material harmful to minors unless the site uses reasonable age verification methods to verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older. How reasonable those methods might have to be and what defines harm remain two vague aspects of the new legislation. But it doesn't stop there.

In addition any adult website now operating or available in Texas will now have to feature one of the following statements in 14pt or above on every landing page:

• Pornography is potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses and weakens brain function.

• Exposure to this content is associated with low self-esteem and body image, eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.

• pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation and child pornography.

 

Offsite Comment: Brain Rotting In Texas

5th June 2023. article from reprobatepress.com

Sex, lies and bad science as Texas passes a law to restrict porn forcing adult websites to carry spurious health warnings.