Internet News

The boss of WhatsApp says it will not lower the security of its messenger service. Will Cathcart told the BBC.

If asked by the government to weaken encryption, it would be very foolish to accept.

We continue to work with the tech sector to support the development of innovative technologies that protect public safety without compromising on privacy.

End-to-end encryption (E2EE) provides the most robust level of security, because - by design - only the intended recipient holds the key to decrypt the message, which is essential for private communication.

The technology underpins the online exchanges on apps including WhatsApp and Signal and - optionally - on Facebook messenger and Telegram. Only the sender and receiver can read those messages - not law enforcement or the technology giants.

The UK government wants phone software to scan people's phones for banned material prior to being encrypted for a message.

Cathcart explained:

Client-side scanning cannot work in practice. Because millions of people use WhatsApp to communicate across the world, it needs to maintain the same standards of privacy across every country.

If we had to lower security for the world, to accommodate the requirement in one country, that...would be very foolish for us to accept, making our product less desirable to 98% of our users because of the requirements from 2%.

What's being proposed is that we - either directly or indirectly through software - read everyone's messages. I don't think people want that.

Ella Jakubowska, policy adviser at campaign group European Digital Rights, said:

Client-side scanning is almost like putting spyware on every person's phone. It also creates a backdoor for malicious actors to have a way in to be able to see your messages.

Offsite Comment: Fixing the UK's Online Safety Bill, part 1:

We need answers.

31st July 2022. See article from webdevlaw.uk   by Heather Burns

Offsite Comment: The delay to the online safety bill

It won't make it any easier to please everyone

17th July 2022. See article from theguardian.com by Alex Hern

 

Offsite Comment: It’s time to kill the Online Safety Bill for good...

Not only is it bad for business, bad for free speech, and -- by attacking encryption -- bad for online safety

16th July 2022. See article from spectator.co.uk by Sam Ashworth-Hayes

Major social networks operating in New Zealand have agreed to voluntarily self-censor content considered misinformation and hate speech.

Those signing up to what's known as Aotearoa (New Zealand) Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms include Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Amazon's Twitch, Twitter, and TikTok.

The initiative comes from Netsafe, a New Zealand campaign group.

It is not stated what type of action the platforms will now be taking in order to achieve that goal, but the companies behind them will be publishing reports each year to demonstrate compliance, and will detail what tools, policies, processes and systems are being used to this end.

The list of content requiring censorship includes child sexual exploitation, bullying or harassment, hate speech, incitement of violence, violent or graphic content, misinformation, and disinformation.

New Zealand is also preparing to adopt actual new laws that would impose further censorship of content labeled as misinformation or hate speech.

Vodafone & Deutsche Telekom recently started trials with Trustpid to reintroduce persistent user tracking of their internet browsing with view to selling browsing history to advertisers.

Although Vodafone claims there is nothing to worry about, privacy officials are especially concerned about the recent involvement of network operators. Privacy advocates call it the return of the Super Cookie. This would be a massive step backward in creating an independent web where the privacy of internet users is respected.

With TrustPid, Vodafone assigns a fixed ID to a user based on someone's phone number. Website operators would then be able to call up this identifier to exactly see what websites this user has visited and create a profile to display targeted ads.

Recent privacy laws are currently challenging Google and Apple's current solutions for selling users' browser history to advertising. Many web browsers block third-party cookies, and even Google Chrome is phasing out third-party cookies next year. Apple is cracking down on user tracking, costing Facebook billions in revenue.

It has become more challenging to monetize customer data, so the advertising market is looking for new solutions to tap into. They do not want to go back to non-personalized advertising, so they are pushing the frontier to see what's still possible. The Trustpid trial is an example of this.

See further details from blog.simpleanalytics.com

Russia has fined Google 21.1bn rouble ($373m) for failing to restrict access to material about the war in Ukraine that Russia does not like.

Roskomnadzor, the country's communications regulator, cited information that discredited Russia's military and posts urging people to protest.

Google's local subsidiary declared bankruptcy last month. The move came after Russian authorities seized its local bank account to extract 7.2bn roubles that the firm had been ordered to pay for similar reasons last year.

The fine was calculated as a share of the firm's local revenue, marks the biggest penalty ever imposed on a tech company in Russia, according to state media.

Surely the fine can't be paid lest it gets used to kill and maime people of Ukraine.

John Penrose, a Tory MP, has tabled an amendment to the Online Censorship Bill currently being debated in Parliament:

To move the following Clause--

Factual Accuracy

(1) The purpose of this section is to reduce the risk of harm to users of regulated services caused my disinformation or misinformation.

(2) Any Regulated Service must provide an index of the historic factual accuracy of material published by each user who has--

(a) produced user-generated content,
(b) news publisher content, or
(c) comments and reviews on provider contact whose content is viewed more widely than a minimum threshold to be defined and set by OFCOM.

(3) The index under subsection (1) must--

(a) satisfy minimum quality criteria to be set by OFCOM, and
(b) be displayed in a way which allows any user easily to reach an informed view of the likely factual accuracy of the content at the same time as they encounter it.

Surely it is a case of be careful what you wish for. After all it would be great to see truth scores attached to all politicians social media posts. I somehow think that other MPs will rather see the flaws in this idea and will be rather quick to see it consigned to the parliamentary trash can.

A Malaysian feminist has been charged with knowingly making and initiating the transmission of obscene communication after she uploaded a collage of vulva like flowers on her Twitter account.

Amira Nur Afiqah Agus Salim pleaded not guilty at the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur. She was released on bail and has a new hearing next month.

According to Yahoo News Malaysia, the vulva collage, posted in September 2021, was meant as a commentary regarding an ad campaign by Libresse, a popular feminine care brand in Malaysia. Libresse had launched a line of sanitary products featuring images of vulvas interpreted into flower motifs on the packaging.

Salim tweeted in response, Libresse uses flower as representation of vulva instead of this? and attached the collage, which the authorities consider a violation of the country's strict obscenity laws.

Religious organizations have also successfully objected to even the stylized, flower-like design that the tweet criticized. The Yadim Muslim Women's Council called the representation a misuse of an image of women's private parts and a dishonor to women.

The Libresse campaign was eventually cancelled due to the uproar.

The European Parliament has ratified the latest laws that to extend internet censorship in the EU.

MEPs approved the final versions of the Digital Markets Act, focused on ending monopolistic practices of tech giants, and the Digital Services Act (DSA), which toughens scrutiny and the consequences for platforms when they host banned content.

The DSA will target a wide range of internet actors and aims to ensure real consequences for companies that fail to censor supposed hate speech, information the authorities don't like and and child sexual abuse images.

Danish MEP Christel Schaldemose commented:

The digital world has developed a bit like a western movie, there were no real rules of the game, but now there is a new sheriff in town.

The DSA passed easily with 539 votes in favor, 54 against and 30 abstentions.

Both laws now require the final approval by the EU's 27 member states, which should be a formality.

Now the big question is over enforcement with worries that the European Commission lacks the means to give sharp teeth to its new powers.

Offsite Article: French lawyers provide the best summary yet

15th June 2022. See article from taylorwessing.com

 

Offsite Article: Have we opened Pandora's box?

20th June 2022. See article from tandfonline.com

Abstract

In thinking about the developing online harms regime (in the UK and elsewhere1) it is forgivable to think only of how laws placing responsibility on social media platforms to prevent hate speech may benefit society. Yet these laws could have insidious implications for free speech. By drawing on Germany's Network Enforcement Act I investigate whether the increased prospect of liability, and the fines that may result from breaching the duty of care in the UK's Online Safety Act - once it is in force - could result in platforms censoring more speech, but not necessarily hate speech, and using the imposed responsibility as an excuse to censor speech that does not conform to their objectives. Thus, in drafting a Bill to protect the public from hate speech we may unintentionally open Pandora's Box by giving platforms a statutory justification to take more control of the message.

See full article from tandfonline.com

 

Offsite Article: The Online Safety Act - An Act of Betrayal

5th July 2022. See article from ukcolumn.org by Iain Davis

The Online Safety Bill (OSB) has been presented to the public as an attempt to protect children from online grooming and abuse and to limit the reach of terrorist propaganda.

This, however, does not seem to be its primary focus. The real objective of the proposed Online Safety Act (OSA) appears to be narrative control.