30/07/2025
5 concerns with the UK Online Safety Bill. Why you should be concerned. It ain’t about the children!!
Personally, I support limiting access to minors via social media. I personally believe children should only have social media when they turn 16. I have seen the positive implications of removing my children’s access to social media. From everything to attitude, happiness and improved academic and sport performance.
What people arnt doing is actually LOOKING at the bill, they are concentrating on children…and if you disagree with the government, then I guess it makes you a nonce?
HOWEVER! Here are a few things that should worry everybody!
Five Privacy Concerns with the UK Online Safety Act 2023
1. Undermining End-to-End Encryption (E2EE)
• Concern: The Act’s provisions, particularly the “spy clause,” empower Ofcom to require platforms to scan encrypted messages for illegal content, which could force companies to weaken or circumvent E2EE.
• Why Worry: E2EE ensures that only the sender and recipient can access message content, protecting against surveillance by governments or hackers. Requiring platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, or Proton to scan messages would necessitate backdoors or client-side scanning, compromising privacy for all users. This creates a surveillance framework where private communications could be accessed by authorities or exposed to cyberattacks, aligning with Orwellian oversight. Companies like Meta and Proton have threatened to exit the UK rather than comply, underscoring the severity of this threat. Posts on X highlight fears that this effectively de-anonymizes users, mirroring authoritarian regimes like China.
2. Mandatory Age Verification and Data Collection
• Concern: The Act mandates robust age verification for platforms, including biometric or ID-based checks, even for non-pornographic content deemed harmful.
• Why Worry: Age verification requires collecting sensitive personal data (e.g., facial scans, government IDs, or email-linked utility bills), which ties real-world identities to online activity. This erodes anonymity, a cornerstone of free expression, and creates vast databases vulnerable to breaches or government misuse. Privacy advocates, such as Big Brother Watch, warn of “intrusive age checks” that risk security breaches and digital exclusion. For example, Reddit’s requirement for selfies or IDs to access certain content illustrates how anonymity is being replaced with mandatory identification, fostering a surveillance state.
3. Broad Content Moderation and Censorship Powers
• Concern: The Act requires platforms to remove or restrict “harmful” content, with vague definitions that extend beyond illegal material to legal but controversial speech. Ofcom can enforce compliance with fines up to £18 million or 10% of global revenue.
• Why Worry: The vague criteria for “harmful” content enable platforms and regulators to over-censor, potentially targeting dissenting or politically sensitive speech under pressure from Ofcom. Civil rights advocates argue this creates a chilling effect, where platforms preemptively block content (e.g., protest videos under UK public order laws) to avoid penalties. This aligns with Orwellian control by stifling free expression and empowering unelected regulators to dictate online discourse. X posts express fears that the Act is a “censor’s charter” with catastrophic impacts on free speech.
4. Mass Surveillance Through Content Scanning
• Concern: The Act mandates platforms to use accredited technology to scan all content, including private messages, for illegal or harmful material, effectively institutionalizing mass surveillance.
• Why Worry: Scanning all user content, especially in encrypted environments, requires invasive technologies like client-side scanning, which monitors data before encryption. Cybersecurity experts, such as Alan Woodward, describe this as “technically dangerous and ethically questionable,” as it increases the attack surface for hackers and enables government access to private data. The Internet Society warns that this undermines data confidentiality and global trust in UK services, creating a surveillance apparatus akin to dystopian oversight. X posts label this as a “Trojan horse for mass surveillance.”
5. Lack of Accountability and Potential for Abuse
• Concern: The Act grants Ofcom broad powers to enforce compliance, including compelling platforms to disclose user data or alter systems, with minimal transparency or judicial oversight.
• Why Worry: Ofcom’s authority to issue fines, block services, or even pursue criminal charges against executives creates a coercive environment where platforms may over-comply to avoid sanctions. This risks arbitrary enforcement, especially since the Act’s overlap with the Investigatory Powers Act could facilitate government access to user data without clear checks. Privacy advocates like Proton’s CEO argue this gives the government unchecked power to access private messages, a hallmark of authoritarian surveillance. X posts warn that IP address collection and data retention could expose users’ locations and activities, amplifying surveillance concerns.
Why This Feels Orwellian?
The Online Safety Act’s combination of mandatory data collection, content scanning, and encryption undermining creates a framework where privacy is sacrificed for control. The vague definitions of “harmful” content, coupled with Ofcom’s sweeping powers, enable selective enforcement that could target dissenting voices or marginalized groups. The erosion of E2EE and anonymity mirrors Orwell’s 1984, where constant monitoring eliminates private spaces. X posts reflect public sentiment that the Act is less about safety and more about establishing a police state, with comparisons to China’s internet controls.
The lack of feasible technology to meet scanning requirements without compromising security further suggests a pretext for surveillance over practical governance.
Critical Perspective
While the government claims the Act balances privacy and safety, the reliance on non-existent scanning technologies and the pressure on platforms to comply suggest a prioritization of control over user rights. The Act’s global implications—potentially reducing trust in UK-based services—could isolate the UK’s digital ecosystem, as warned by the Internet Society. Privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue that similar laws globally (e.g., EU’s Chat Control) amplify these risks, creating a blueprint for authoritarian regimes.
Recommendations
• Use encrypted services like Proton or Signal, which prioritize privacy and may resist compliance.
• Employ VPNs to mask IP addresses and bypass age gates, as noted by increased VPN usage in the UK post-Act
And people will say “well I’m not up to no good so why should I worry”? Are you not worried about posting the wrong thing online that results in a prison sentence? Are you not worried about all of your personal data being logged, tracked and processed by AI? Are you not worried that you are no longer allowed an opinion on subjects and have the right to voice that concern publically?
The list goes on. Do with this information what you will.
