UK Has Passed The Online Safety Bill

wOn'T sOmEbOdY pLeAsE tHiNk oF ThE cHiLdReN- how about doing some actual parenting? also it's not like this will stop illegal content, what a joke

Oh this is done for the money. What wouldve been better is age restriction to the whole net, hopefully finding a way to make parents responsible for their children and what they do. But that means way less views and traffic for ads. Yes there's "YT Kids" and such but what being on the internet has taught me is absolutely every type of online service can be exploited and attacked.
I can understand parents wanting some help from official sides. They are hated no matter what they do: Controlling internet access, especially of their teenagers? Helicopter parenting, or parents on a power trip. Letting their children use the internet? Neglecting assholes. Sitting next to their teenagers while they use the internet? Overbearing creeps smothering their children and possibly jobless leeches.
Parents have to at least be able to trust content filters.
- Nice strawmen u got there, they can helicopter their dicks too idc stop controlling MY experience

So encryption is dead in the UK?

Do they not realize there are messaging services that don't even have a central server or even an entity responsible?

Or companies that don't even have a presence in the UK, and thus no responsibility to comply with their laws?

Pedos will just download and install something like Keet or Signal or Session while the privacy and security of law-abiding citizens are irrevocably compromised...

One more law to break as a criminal
Mby Briar or Jammy
- I mean there's no shortage of possibilities
Or just create a simple messaging app within a day using libre options with some AI tools to re-brand it.

After bouncing back and forth between the house of lord's and the house of commons This bill is a shadow of it's former self. I'm glad to say.

Three things that were massively damaging for privacy and security have, as far as I can see, been scrapped.

The bill no longer requires tech companies to control 'harmful but legal' content. A blurry, ill defined concept that would have been impossible to regulate.
The bill no longer requires all end to end encrypted communication channel's (WhatsApp etc) to have a backdoor for governments and enforcement agencies to access unencrypted messages between people. Something that would have broken effective security in every way.
The bill no longer requires porn to only be accessible to UK citizens after they have proven they are an adult. This was by providing bank details or ID to porn websites (lol no thanks), possibly through a third party company that is supposed to assure some privacy ( lol still no thanks).

And what's left in the bill is going to be regulated by Ofcom, a toothless underfunded shell of a regulatory body.

Can I ask where you got this info from? The article says the bill is 300 pages long. I'm never getting through all that.
Edit: the article also claims age verification for porn sites is still in there?
- Sure. I've not read it either but here's what I've found.
  Removal of encryption backdoors - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/britain-admits-defeat-in-online-safety-bill-encryption
  Removal of 'harmful but legal' - https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/29/uk-online-safety-bill-legal-but-harmful-edit/
  Age verification isn't so clear cut but there's room for a lot of hope. What 'age verification' is going to be in the bill is yet to be determined by Ofcom.
  .. Which is law makers kicking the can down the road... or passing the buck. Probably because it's unenforceable and a technical/ privacy nightmare. Maybe it will amount to something, in which case we should be afraid, but I think most likely it will amount to not much.
  Full bill is here if you have a spare 3 days to read it all - https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/52368/documents/3841
- It is still in there.
re your 2nd point, that's most certainly not been scrapped. The language has changed to basically say, they're aware thetech doesn't currently exist to do this but as soon as it does, it must be done. It's a temporary reprieve at best.
- OK great, because that tech will never exist.
Don't worry, allmof that will be back on the table again next year, and then the next and the next, untill it passes.
Remember kids, if you want to be a good evil politician, you just keep pushing and pushing and pushing your evil shit until people tire and it passes.
This shit has been on the table at just about all governments since at least 2 decades. It just returns each year with a new name, same shit.
I hope they make this worldwide.

Guess V for Vendetta will come true as the U.K. has fallen to Fascism.

We recently passed a law that enables the UK to indefinitely detain adult and children refugees and asylum seekers. I'm sure they'll be building camps next.
This government has no morals.
- The nazis scared britain so bad during ww2 they want to try it themselves.
- And that's another part of this bill - discussion of 'illegal immigration' is now forbidden.
England prevails.

I fucking hate this country

It is a consistent embarrassment and detriment to the world.

VPN subscriptions in the UK will be a lucrative market then for people wanting access to, let's see, Wikipedia...

I'm interested to know what the Signal President meant when she said she's much more optimistic about working with the government than she originally was.

The thing is it obviously does come from good intentions, and it's very rare you'll find me saying that about something to do with the Tories. But it's so obviously the wrong approach and yet here we are. Thanks for nothing. Yet again.

They are using the "good intentions" as cover for their ever expanding surveillance state. It is absolutely not the intention of this bill to provide "safety" for the citizens. It's to make sure that the citizens don't get too uppity and threaten their masters.
The original intent - to stop kids accessing harmful content on big tech media sites was the sole original intent. That's now morphed into the legislative tool for mass surveillance that's just been passed. That original intent wasn't a Tory idea as such, but two researchers. The addition of more and more draconian elements most definitely was from the Tories. Including the red Tory currently leading the Labour party.
I feel since she took over, Signal has been on a steady downward trajectory. Increasing the barriers to use, more centralization instead of federation, and the stupid fucking Stories feature.
- Which barriers to use has Signal implemented? How is the App more centralized now than before, and have they ever expressed interest in federating their service before under Moxie? And how is implementing an optional feature that a lot of people like an argument for an assumed “downward trajectory”?
Ironic if most UK users just start using VPNs to access content no longer available in UK.
Probably means she’s believing what they told her!
As for the Tories I think this is the ideal extension to their snoopers charter.
- I've been using a VPN, blockers, all sorts in the UK to disguise some of my online activity from Google and other companies so if I'm just doing the same thing to avoid the government there's not much difference.
  The fact that I still use Google products is a lapse and due to laziness on my part...
  Of course it could be a vote winner for Starmer at the next election to say he'll repeal it on free speech grounds of he played it right. But then the opposition could spin it as him not wanting to protect children online so he probably won't have the guts to risk it.
Hmm surely vpn companies would have to start logging heavily now. It should be possible to have a backdoor by design. All I can trust is tor I think

Well fuck.

- I seriously don't think so

"safety"

The posts are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.

Are they going to ban LGBT people from the internet like the US is trying to do?

However Meredith Whittaker, the president of Signal, said that they were "more optimistic than we were when we began engaging with the UK government".

So they aren't leaving the UK? I'm confused...

They threatened to leave and the UK Gov called these companies bluff. They won't leave.
- WhatsApp certainly won't, they own the UK chat app market and it's not like they genuinely give a shit about privacy.
  The others - remains to be seen.

Since you can't get an internet contract as kid by yourself, why is this even a thing to require check for legal age?

Kids using the ISP in their homes, using wifi in a public place etc.

Scotland should leave asap.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Online Safety Bill has taken years to agree and will force firms to remove illegal content and protect children from some legal but harmful material.

The bill has had a lengthy and contentious journey to becoming law, beginning six years ago when the government committed to the idea of improving internet safety.

The idea that inspired the bill was relatively simple, scribbled down on the back of a sandwich packet by two experts, Prof Lorna Woods of the University of Essex and William Perrin of the charitable foundation Carnegie UK.

Dame Melanie Dawes, chief executive of Ofcom, called the bill's passage through parliament "a major milestone in the mission to create a safer life online for children and adults in the UK."

"Very soon after the Bill receives Royal Assent, we'll consult on the first set of standards that we'll expect tech firms to meet in tackling illegal online harms, including child sexual exploitation, fraud and terrorism," she added.

There is a lot staked on the success of the bill - not only the safety of children and adults, but also the UK's ambitions as a tech hub and possibly, if things go wrong, continued access to popular online services.

The original article contains 785 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Kinda left out the important bits, quoted below
Platforms will also need to show they are committed to removing illegal content including:

child sexual abuse controlling or coercive behaviour extreme sexual violence illegal immigration and people smuggling promoting or facilitating suicide promoting self-harm animal cruelty selling illegal drugs or weapons terrorism
New offences have also been included in the bill, including cyber-flashing and the sharing of "deepfake" pornography.
And the bill includes measures to make it easier for bereaved parents to obtain information about their children from tech firms.
Online safety campaigner Ian Russell has told the BBC the test of the bill will be whether it prevents the kind of images his daughter Molly saw before she took her own life after viewing suicide and self-harm content online on sites such as Instagram and Pinterest.
Digital rights campaigners the Open Rights Group said the bill posed "a huge threat to freedom of expression with tech companies expected to decide what is and isn't legal, and then censor content before it's even been published".
Lawyer Graham Smith, author of a book on internet law, said the bill had well-meaning aims, but in the end it contained much that was problematic.
"If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, this is a motorway," he told the BBC.
He said it was "a deeply misconceived piece of legislation", and the threat it posed to legitimate speech was likely to be "exposed in the courts".
And popular messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal have threatened to refuse to comply with powers in the bill that would force them to examine the contents of encrypted messages for child abuse material.
Wikipedia has also said it can't comply with some of the requirements of the bill.
After royal assent the baton will pass to the communications regulator, Ofcom, who will be largely responsible for enforcing the bill.
It will draw up codes of conduct that will provide guidance on how to comply with the new rules.
Those who fail can face large fines of up to £18m, or in some cases executives could face imprisonment.
- I guess I’m an old fuddy-duddy taking crazy pills because nothing in this seems bad to me. Hell, quite a few parents have had their kids commit suicide after viewing suicide content online, this would literally save lives. And the tech companies should take some responsibility for what’s on their platforms.