Online Safety Bill is going to be fun NOT

[foobarbaz]

As per subject the new online safety bill has been recently presented in draft

External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

If it passes it will likely kill most of the online forums potentially including UKP 

[fisherofsouls]

My brain function is not what it was - I found the BBC article too generic and the draft Bill somewhat impenetrable...

Can you explain the principal risks and impacts please?

[Stevelondon]

Incredibly complex and jargonistic of course.
I attempted to wade through the bill overview, then my brain started to hurt.

[pbrown355]

Just started reading it. I'll let you know what I think in 7 weeks time when I finish!

[fredfunkster]

I had a skim though the bill. For this site, I think it comes down to whether children can access it. Age verification is unreliable, but in its absence, there’s no way of saying minors are not likely to be on here.

If that problem was solved, I think this site would be fine. It’s highly moderated and generally free of conspiracy garbage or bullying, racism etc.

If that remains unsolved then it’s all over. And tbf, if I were a 12, 13 year old boy and I could get on here, I would.  Back in the day I had a stack of Fiesta and Knave under the bed. Did it do me any harm? Yes, probably, in setting a pornographic view of women.  Now, if this site is framing women as whores, to boys, that’s not good.

I won’t be committing any age verification details here though. So for me it will probably be good bye.

[Woblybobsdog]

I had a skim though the bill. For this site, I think it comes down to whether children can access it. Age verification is unreliable, but in its absence, there’s no way of saying minors are not likely to be on here.

If that problem was solved, I think this site would be fine. It’s highly moderated and generally free of conspiracy garbage or bullying, racism etc.

If that remains unsolved then it’s all over. And tbf, if I were a 12, 13 year old boy and I could get on here, I would.  Back in the day I had a stack of Fiesta and Knave under the bed. Did it do me any harm? Yes, probably, in setting a pornographic view of women.  Now, if this site is framing women as whores, to boys, that’s not good.

I won’t be committing any age verification details here though. So for me it will probably be good bye.

More likely to be framing whores as overpriced and unreliable

[lillythesavage]

More likely to be framing whores as overpriced and unreliable

Only if they are, usually.

Age verification for adult websites has been on the agenda for a while now, it will get done eventually.

[foobarbaz]

The problem with the bill in a gist is that your average forum might need to close due to the additional cost that the so called "duty of care" brings. My understanding is that it's not enough to say, yes we have moderators that moderate and call it a day, there is a need for proper auditing, yearly reporting, etc. and yes age verification is another aspect which as it's been said is one that you will never be able to prove. Basically another bill made by people who clearly have no idea or understanding of how the web works.

[foobarbaz]

Only if they are, usually.

Age verification for adult websites has been on the agenda for a while now, it will get done eventually.

Enforcing age verification on a website is like enforcing age verification at the supermarket, you can't. You send in you 18yo friend and you are done.

[lillythesavage]

Enforcing age verification on a website is like enforcing age verification at the supermarket, you can't. You send in you 18yo friend and you are done.

True, but are you going to give ID to a kid to access an adult website?  Or even use your ID to gain access ?

[foobarbaz]

I personally wouldn't, the same way I wouldn't buy them booze or get them porn magazine, yet most of us had someone who did that for them in when underage right?

[filthy.john]

I had a skim though the bill. For this site, I think it comes down to whether children can access it. Age verification is unreliable, but in its absence, there’s no way of saying minors are not likely to be on here.

If that problem was solved, I think this site would be fine. It’s highly moderated and generally free of conspiracy garbage or bullying, racism etc.

If that remains unsolved then it’s all over. And tbf, if I were a 12, 13 year old boy and I could get on here, I would.  Back in the day I had a stack of Fiesta and Knave under the bed. Did it do me any harm? Yes, probably, in setting a pornographic view of women.  Now, if this site is framing women as whores, to boys, that’s not good.

I won’t be committing any age verification details here though. So for me it will probably be good bye.

Pretty subjective though that, isnt it... It would - I am sure - the legislation is likely to have a mop-up clause that will enable the authorities to close down any site it deems to be offensive in some way.

[foobarbaz]

Indeed, that's exactly the problem, it's not a matter of having the perception the site is ok, but the ability to actually prove it is, being able to show content is identified and deleted in a promptly manner, etc. and that doesn't come for free.

[DrGFreeman]

I would have thought the legislation was aimed at the major social media outlets - which have UK offices, UK advertisers and probably a UK company ?
you can fine them through the courts
but I didn't think this site was registered or hosted in the UK ?
how would the UK govt apply leverage on UKP ? there isnt even a trail of money to attack eg Visa

while the bill may talk about being it applicable outside UK juristiction - how in practice are you going to enforce that if there is no UK presence to go after ?

and anyway why would you ? theres nothing too dodgy on here you couldnt defend under a reasonable right to free speech

[Gordon Bennett]

I don't see any issue whatsoever, am I missing something? Everything mentioned in the BBC article seems eminently sensible and frankly much needed. My impression is that the ancient lumbering thing I'd loosely call "the law" has been left behind my the digital age that has evolved and developed at breakneck speed - something urgently needs to be done to address that gap and protect all of us from the endless sea of cunts who wish to conduct criminal and harmful activity online.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone would rail against measures that prevent people getting scammed or persecuted online and stops kids accessing snuff movies and hatdcore porn online?

[Itsnotshy]

Part of a trend towards technocratic authoritarianism. All with the best possible intentions of course. We all must be kept safe by the state, from others and ourselves.
Sorry, the anarchist in me coming out there.
Actually I couldn't give a shit about online, I'm far more concerned about the real world and how our freedoms are being curtailed there.

[s0whatsnew?]

The Bill-drafters seem to have forgotten that the internet sevice providers already apply age verification measures (usually by making a refundable payment by credit card)  if a customer wants to access adult sites.   I'd have thought that the government would see that process as more secure and efficient than leaving it up to individual websites.  Unless, of course, there's another agenda going on for the government.  Now, nobody's saying there's a plot...    https://www.ukpunting.com/Smileys/kolobok/sad.gif

[lillythesavage]

The Bill-drafters seem to have forgotten that the internet sevice providers already apply age verification measures (usually by making a refundable payment by credit card)  if a customer wants to access adult sites.   I'd have thought that the government would see that process as more secure and efficient than leaving it up to individual websites.  Unless, of course, there's another agenda going on for the government.  Now, nobody's saying there's a plot...    https://www.ukpunting.com/Smileys/kolobok/sad.gif

Where? never been asked to make a payment, refundable or not, would not do it but still accessing all you can eat porn and this site. Have notice a confirm you are over 18 windows pop up more often, click yes and job done.

[char45]

At least for the last few years I've had to provide credit card details when I get a new SIM card to remove the content block, they don't seem to take a payment. 

Is there a good summary of this bill anywhere? Everything I've seen is either vague as with the BBC article or focussed on facebook, etc not smaller websites

Where? never been asked to make a payment, refundable or not, would not do it but still accessing all you can eat porn and this site. Have notice a confirm you are over 18 windows pop up more often, click yes and job done.

[cotton]

I don't see any issue whatsoever, am I missing something? Everything mentioned in the BBC article seems eminently sensible and frankly much needed. My impression is that the ancient lumbering thing I'd loosely call "the law" has been left behind my the digital age that has evolved and developed at breakneck speed - something urgently needs to be done to address that gap and protect all of us from the endless sea of cunts who wish to conduct criminal and harmful activity online.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone would rail against measures that prevent people getting scammed or persecuted online and stops kids accessing snuff movies and hatdcore porn online?

So would you be happy to undergo age verification to access UKP  ?
Personally undergoing age verification is neither here or there for me , its no big deal , im not paranoid about annonymity like alot of forum members are , but just on a personal level i dont favour the government micro managing everything we can and cant do , you could argue that it their legitimate role but when they take it to overly intrusive and obstructive levels then its going to antagonise people.
And as others have said why not just stay with opting into over 18y/o content with your internet service provider 

[vyrez]

Basically another bill made by people who clearly have no idea or understanding of how the web works.

Summed up what I had to say. 

[foobarbaz]

Is there a good summary of this bill anywhere? Everything I've seen is either vague as with the BBC article or focussed on facebook, etc not smaller websites

Not that I could find yet, but I started reading the content of the bill and there is a thread going on in another forum I'm member of where they are discussing the topic and the overall understanding as the daft stand now is that they might have to close

[foobarbaz]

I don't see any issue whatsoever, am I missing something? Everything mentioned in the BBC article seems eminently sensible and frankly much needed. My impression is that the ancient lumbering thing I'd loosely call "the law" has been left behind my the digital age that has evolved and developed at breakneck speed - something urgently needs to be done to address that gap and protect all of us from the endless sea of cunts who wish to conduct criminal and harmful activity online.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone would rail against measures that prevent people getting scammed or persecuted online and stops kids accessing snuff movies and hatdcore porn online?

I'm the first one who would back the initiative but the problem is in the way the bill demands its implementation which can come to a huge financial and operational burden especially for those little community who are running most of the time out of the pocket of single individuals that will likely not be able to survive because of that.

Additionally, some of the suggestions are borderline stupid. Saying that in order to prevents fraud providers will need to remove end to end encryption is risible and dead wrong and also age verification systems are close to useless too.

So basically the idea is ethically correct but its idea of implementation dead wrong and mostly from a techinical point of view.

[foobarbaz]

I would have thought the legislation was aimed at the major social media outlets - which have UK offices, UK advertisers and probably a UK company ?
you can fine them through the courts
but I didn't think this site was registered or hosted in the UK ?
how would the UK govt apply leverage on UKP ? there isnt even a trail of money to attack eg Visa

while the bill may talk about being it applicable outside UK juristiction - how in practice are you going to enforce that if there is no UK presence to go after ?

and anyway why would you ? theres nothing too dodgy on here you couldnt defend under a reasonable right to free speech

It is and it is not. In the bill they created categories for different size services and they also added exceptions (thanks God), however even small forums are caught into the net (pun intended) of this new regulation if it will go on.

About the jurisdiction point is a bit unclear what they can do and cannot do, on principle they could be easily obscured and the ability to reach them via VPN prevented.

[DrGFreeman]

ok, so I gave up reading the consultation documents, but I still dont get it
where is the 'harm' in this website ? theres no dodgy porn, we just talk about sex with prostitutes which is perfectly legal
'harms' in what I read where kiddie porn and terrorism related material - which are already illegal
the only issue might be how you stop children signing up, but are they proposing every discussion forum has age verification in place ?  if so how ?

from at UKpunting perspective, how would this be enforced on non-UK websites like this one ?
a list of 'approved websites' with ISPs blocking anything ? sounds like censorship to me
force the search engines to delist it, maybe. but then block non-.co.uk search engines, starting to sound like china. I dont buy it

the only thing that might be applicable in my reading was take down requests
so if an escort wants her pics deleted, that there is a mechanism in place to do so.

[foobarbaz]

ok, so I gave up reading the consultation documents, but I still dont get it
where is the 'harm' in this website ? theres no dodgy porn, we just talk about sex with prostitutes which is perfectly legal
'harms' in what I read where kiddie porn and terrorism related material - which are already illegal
the only issue might be how you stop children signing up, but are they proposing every discussion forum has age verification in place ?  if so how ?

from at UKpunting perspective, how would this be enforced on non-UK websites like this one ?
a list of 'approved websites' with ISPs blocking anything ? sounds like censorship to me
force the search engines to delist it, maybe. but then block non-.co.uk search engines, starting to sound like china. I dont buy it

the only thing that might be applicable in my reading was take down requests
so if an escort wants her pics deleted, that there is a mechanism in place to do so.

The website owner will be required to produce documents and report under the concept of "duty of care" for example, the owner needs to be able the demonstrate that harmful content is dealt with and deleted in a promptly manner for example and there is need to show that happened via an audit trail log of sort and that comes at a cost, maybe you are right, maybe for a site like AW it's nothing, although I have no idea about its current operating model, but maybe it's not and surely it's not nothing for many other small communities out there.

And yes, the all problem is indeed around censorship and freedom of speech, as it's written right now this bill does exactly that it's taking one extreme, the one of big social media giving way too much freedom, and moving it to the other of we want the sites owner to be fully accountable and be bound by law to police everything that happens on their platform.

In short, this bill is going to cost site owners money in a way or the other an not all owners will be able to afford the extra operational cost.

[DrGFreeman]

one of the words that pops up in the documentation frequently is 'proportionate'
I dont believe it would be proportionate for a not-for-profit run discussion forum with no staff to be required to submit annual reports, esp when there is no 'harm'
it would say it might be proportionate for say facebook.uk or red**t to do so

using your approach a agricultural discussion forum in Uganda is going to have to produce annual reports for the UK regulator to see they've addressed online harm, or be delisted from google ?

[mh]

The Bill-drafters seem to have forgotten that the internet sevice providers already apply age verification measures (usually by making a refundable payment by credit card)  if a customer wants to access adult sites.   

Cellular providers and ISPs can block the major existing porn sites, but simply won't know that a site set up "today" is a porn site or not.

It will be up to a website operator to put a block in place for content that falls under the act or moderate content so as not to need a block. The type of block an operator puts in will have to stand scrutiny but a payment via credit card has been accepted as proof for some time.

[filthy.john]

ok, so I gave up reading the consultation documents, but I still dont get it
where is the 'harm' in this website ? theres no dodgy porn, we just talk about sex with prostitutes which is perfectly legal
'harms' in what I read where kiddie porn and terrorism related material - which are already illegal
the only issue might be how you stop children signing up, but are they proposing every discussion forum has age verification in place ?  if so how ?

from at UKpunting perspective, how would this be enforced on non-UK websites like this one ?
a list of 'approved websites' with ISPs blocking anything ? sounds like censorship to me
force the search engines to delist it, maybe. but then block non-.co.uk search engines, starting to sound like china. I dont buy it

the only thing that might be applicable in my reading was take down requests
so if an escort wants her pics deleted, that there is a mechanism in place to do so.

It's all subjective isnt it... where mildly offensive tweets can be reported as an treated as 'hate crime' I think it is but a small step to assume that a website that 'promotes' or facilitates prostitution and contains material that could be construed as sexually explicit and has links to such material could be brought within the ambit of proposed legislation.

[foobarbaz]

one of the words that pops up in the documentation frequently is 'proportionate'
I dont believe it would be proportionate for a not-for-profit run discussion forum with no staff to be required to submit annual reports, esp when there is no 'harm'
it would say it might be proportionate for say facebook.uk or red**t to do so

using your approach a agricultural discussion forum in Uganda is going to have to produce annual reports for the UK regulator to see they've addressed online harm, or be delisted from google ?

It's not my approach, it wouldn't be, but I didn't write the bill, I simply work in the industry and I know how wrong this things are often handled, I was simply sharing a piece of news that might become relevant and to give a heads up to the admins and the users just as FYI... hopefully nothing will happen.

[rubric]

ok, so I gave up reading the consultation documents, but I still dont get it
where is the 'harm' in this website ? theres no dodgy porn, we just talk about sex with prostitutes which is perfectly legal

Right until they move to a scandanavian model of enforcement and every review is a piece of evidence of criminal behaviour.

[Malvolio]

The paranoia is starting to creep in on this thread - until the bill has actually passed I'm not at all bothered.

[anglianfloyd]

An 18+ verification would not be a “cure all” , the proposed Bill very specifically is weighted toward vulnerable persons as well as minors so is not age restrictive at all .

[DrGFreeman]

The paranoia is starting to creep in on this thread - until the bill has actually passed I'm not at all bothered.

+1
I remember all the hysteria around GDPR, the fear was overblown too

[foobarbaz]

+1
I remember all the hysteria around GDPR, the fear was overblown too

GDPR wasn’t hysteria in the slightest, not even in the industry, just an implementation cost that companies and site owners had to incur to be lawful.

[Thephoenix]

The bill was due to be put to MPs next week but it's been dropped and put on hold until a new PM is in place in the Autumn.
That's particularly interesting if Kemi Badenoch wins the leadership contest as she's been quoted as saying she welcomes the delay and has opposed the bill on the grounds of free speech.

[Trex]

That's particularly interesting if Kemi Badenoch wins the leadership contest as she's been quoted as saying she welcomes the delay and has opposed the bill on the grounds of free speech.

Wants to abandon 2050 net zero Carbon emissions target. Not a good idea specially the weather is getting warmer and warmer.

Might as well bring Boris back 

[bops909]

Just started reading it. I'll let you know what I think in 7 weeks time when I finish!

Someone has done the work for you.

It's an interesting article with some dark undertones....

External Link/Members Only

[PumpDump]

So it looks like this is going to be passed.

External Link/Members Only

Some of the most controversial parts:

"The bill also aims to hold platforms responsible for illegal content such as child sexual abuse images, make adult websites properly enforce age limits, and stop underage children being able to create social media accounts."

"one of the proposals would force platforms like WhatsApp and Signal to undermine messaging encryption so private chats could be checked for illegal content."

[contentguy]

"one of the proposals would force platforms like WhatsApp and Signal to undermine messaging encryption so private chats could be checked for illegal content."

I understand this has been dropped for now: External Link/Members Only

It wasn't just for private chats, it was accessing all content on a device, prior to any encryption to compare it against a database of "illegal material".
So essentially, a government back door into every device. 

Of course a really secure one that couldn't be accessed by those with nefarious intents. 

[Southernbloke]

The problem with all these laws is that there’s no money for enforcement. It’s like all these traffic laws that they brought in; no using phones while driving ( still see plenty of people doing it) , bringing in a cpc for truck drivers again barely any enforcement unless you are in an accident.
They will have a purge now and then but generally if forum’s such as this one keep their noses clean then nothing will happen.

[Punting2022]

Whys this such a big issue.
Whatsapp should be monitored tbh and telegram. Too many scams go on via those methods. Terrorist too. Think how many terror plots can be stopped if whatsapp etc can be tracked.

In the world of punting, does this law mean websites such as Adult work will go . Or closely  monitored.

[mrwhite]

Whys this such a big issue.
Whatsapp should be monitored tbh and telegram. Too many scams go on via those methods. Terrorist too. Think how many terror plots can be stopped if whatsapp etc can be tracked.

In the world of punting, does this law mean websites such as Adult work will go . Or closely  monitored.

It is a big issue, because it opens the platform to abuse by other governments as well.  For example, arranging a nice punt by whatsapp here in the UK it is perfectly legal, but a country like the USA could monitor your actions and decide to interpret your fun and games as an illegal activity which could then affect your application for an ESTA to visit the USA.

[PumpDump]

Whys this such a big issue.
Whatsapp should be monitored tbh and telegram. Too many scams go on via those methods. Terrorist too. Think how many terror plots can be stopped if whatsapp etc can be tracked.

In the world of punting, does this law mean websites such as Adult work will go . Or closely  monitored.

Think of it as leaving your backdoor to your house unlocked. You may say that is fine with you as you have nothing to hide. But do you want anyone, and I mean anyone at all, to be able to open your door enter your home and have a snoop around your house, and possibly place things in your house that are not yours? Things that could get you in to trouble with the law. What about countries who lock up people who oppose the government, or jail human rights activists, etc. Do you want the governments to have the ability to search the messages on everyone's phones to find such people?

[Steve6901]

One of the points of the new law is mandatory age verification.

Age verification systems are surveillance systems.
It would force websites to require visitors to prove their age by submitting information such as government-issued identification or providing the bank card details so that the bank can verify the age.

Seriously, if I want to find a girl, should I give out all my private information?  That's a joke!!!

No single escort site can fulfill this requirement. They don't have the capacity for it. I think they are going to discontinue their service.

[PumpDump]

One of the points of the new law is mandatory age verification.

Age verification systems are surveillance systems.
It would force websites to require visitors to prove their age by submitting information such as government-issued identification or providing the bank card details so that the bank can verify the age.

Seriously, if I want to find a girl, should I give out all my private information?  That's a joke!!!

No single escort site can fulfill this requirement. They don't have the capacity for it. I think they are going to discontinue their service.

You need to pay for a VPN which will allow you to switch your location to another country. Then the websites will think you are outside UK and not ask for the verification.

One of the other requirements is for social media companies to ensure children don't register for their service. By children they mean under 13. I don't see how they can do this as most 14+ year olds don't have ID to prove their age.

[stewpid]

Think of it as leaving your backdoor to your house unlocked. You may say that is fine with you as you have nothing to hide. But do you want anyone, and I mean anyone at all, to be able to open your door enter your home and have a snoop around your house, and possibly place things in your house that are not yours? Things that could get you in to trouble with the law. What about countries who lock up people who oppose the government, or jail human rights activists, etc. Do you want the governments to have the ability to search the messages on everyone's phones to find such people?

Very much this! An the UK is certainly heading down the road to becoming one of those countries who lock up people who oppose the government... 

[nbarnes]

Any weakening of e2e encryption wouldn't have worked anyway on the people they wanted it to work on.

Public-Private key encryption easily defeats "Man-in-the-Middle" attacks.

Pretty Good Privacy had this on lock about 15 years ago.

Before I send you a whatsapp, you send me your 'public key'. You can send this to anyone, even the FBI - it won't help them break your secure messages.
I use this to encrypt the text I am about to send you.
I then paste the encrypted text into whatsapp, send it to you and you decode it using your private key that is kept purely on your device.
Doesn't matter who is listening then - all they get is another encrypted data stream.

If the Federales suspect you are doing bad stuff, they have to pinch you and force you to hand over the private key \ your phone password - just like how it currently works - but not everyone in the UK gets their online messages unlocked for anyone with a polytechnic Comp Sci degree to look at.

Comparing it against a list of suspected illegal content will also fail with encrypted data streams, as padding\tiny changes to the data stream (easy to do, for example change a few pixels in an illegal image) will result in a significantly changed hashcode (what is used to determine two files are the same), making it digital whack-a-mole.

VPNs will protect against the majority of content filtering and DNS level censorship.

This bill really is a step beyond the pale and it will not work.

It will not mean that parents do not have to parent their children - or stop little Johnny from seeing things he isn't meant to see - it will just give UK plc the ability to shutdown anyone they don't like. (in the UK at least)

Problem is no future government will repeal it - it will be too useful to them and 'to hell with your placebo protection for your children's safety' s never going to look good in a political manifesto.

[Nic Fit]

So this is law now, what does it mean for punters?

[chadpitt]

So the choice is for companies to change nothing and get fined 10% of global revenue. Or just leave the UK.

It's probably cheaper and less hassle to just block uk ips.

This is what happens when you let tech illiterate people decide the laws.