In the UK, the Online Safety Act (OSA) was sold to the public as a
way to shield vulnerable people from harmful content, and protect
children from internet predators. It sounded like it would ensure a
safer, more accountable online experience. The true motivation for its
implementation is revealing itself, and is being met by waves of
backlash – not only by privacy campaigners, but from regular internet
users, tech professionals, artists, and whole sections of parliament.
Hundreds of thousands have signed petitions, and legal challenges are
underway.
Increasingly, then, the question is being asked: was this ever really about safety?
The OSA gives Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) unprecedented
power over the country’s digital content. It now mandates that platforms
proactively monitor, censor and remove any content it deems “harmful”,
even if there’s nothing illegal about it. This includes, by increasingly
blurry definitions, hate speech, misinformation and bullying – and can
even introduce jailtime for companies failing to comply with them.
Among the most vocal opponents are the encrypted messaging apps,
Whatsapp and Signal. The OSA means government regulators can compel
these services to install backdoor services to scan the content of
messages, which fundamentally undermines the core principle of their
end-to-end encryption offerings. Any companies found refusing to comply
may now be fined, blocked, or even criminalised. In short: the privacy
we were promised is now being mandated against.
This Act also criminalises “unauthorised access” to online content,
which critics say could affect basic functions like right-clicking
certain things, viewing source code, or accessing archived information.
It’s legislation with sweeping intent, but vague definitions....<<<
Read More>>>...
