The Online Safety Bill has been met with a flurry of controversy at every stage of its development, and is due to enter Parliament yet again for further debate.

Though it has safety in the name, the bill, which is intended to protect those most vulnerable on the internet -especially children – has been met with harsh criticism for removing privacy assurances and inhibiting freedom of expression, as it critics deem.

As the government continues to grapple with the mammoth task of regulating the internet – a feat made more monumental with the rise of cyber threats, social media, and data protection concerns – companies and human rights groups have amassed a plethora of expanding concerns.

For some, the bill goes too far. For others, not far enough. In a strange way, these two lines of thought seem to be coming from the same parties.

Where we are now

DIGIT has tracked the undulating developments of the controversial bill, which is currently facing more debate in Parliament.

Previous critiques appear to have gone nowhere despite several changes to the bill. The main conundrum remains, as Parliament continues to debate how they can keep people safe on the internet while protecting privacy and freedom of speech.

A major stipulation of the bill has to do with end-to-end encryption, which may be undermined by the Bill to allow Ofcom to issue “technology notices’ which would require private messaging services to put in place ‘accredited tech’ that will detect certain types of message – essentially enabling tools that could screen UK citizen’s private messages on personal phones.

End-to-end encrypted messages can currently only be read by senders and recipients, and messages on platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal and fully encrypted to allow for maximum privacy.

WhatsApp and Signal have signed an open letter calling for the MPs to dismiss this section of the bill, with the Open letter reading: “As currently drafted, the Bill could break end-to-end encryption,opening the door to routine, general and indiscriminate surveillance of personal messages of friends, family members, employees, executives, journalists, human rights activists and even politicians themselves, which would fundamentally undermine everyone’s ability to communicate securely.”

The open letter showed concerns for the powers given to Ofcom, essentially opening up a ‘backdoor’ to private messages, putting people at risk. Removing end-t0-end encryption would also allow cybercriminals greater access to private messages.

The signatores of the letter – which include leading figures at Element, OPTF/Session, Signal, Threema, Viber, WhatsApp, and Wire – say that the bill would allow Ofcom to pre-emptively scan messages, though the Bill’s writers say it is not intended to be read this way.

WhatsApp and Signal were willing to go so far as to remove themselves from the UK market completely rather than comply with the regulations if they removed encryption.

Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering at the University of Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh, critiqued the situation: “A particularly objectionable aspect of the Bill is the proposal by Ofcom and GCHQ that end-to-end encrypted services such as WhatsApp should scan sent messages before they are encrypted, and received messages after they are decrypted.

“By mandating surveillance software that will scan messages on every phone, it will create a back-door for hackers, scammers, and foreign governments, right in our own pockets. History teaches that you cannot create vulnerabilities that only the “good guys” can use.

“By undermining encryption, the so-called ‘Online Safety Bill’ actually puts families and children at risk – of having their personal information intercepted and exploited.”

Other critics agree, including the general secretary for the National Union of Journalists, Michelle Stanistreet, saying: “Government risks undermining the security of confidential communications between journalists and sources under proposals in the bill.

“As companies signal their refusal to comply with weakened privacy standards platforms will be forced to adopt, information used to inform public interest journalism remains under grave threat. Government must act now, introducing amendments that ensure protections are afforded to journalists and their encrypted messages.”

Recommended

• Barclays Eagle Labs Unveils Digital Growth Grant Plans
• University of Edinburgh AI Accelerator Applications Open
• Edinburgh on the Rise as European Data Capital

In a concurring statement, Dr. Monica Horten, policy manager for freedom of expression at the Open Rights Group, urged policy makers to amend the bill: “At the crucial committee stage in the House of Lords, peers must work to amend the Online Safety Bill.

“In its current form, it threatens every person’s right to freedom of expression and privacy. In particular, the Bill could allow the scanning of everyone’s private messages, potentially undermining the encryption that keeps us safe.

“The House of Lords must support amendments that will prevent illiberal legislation passing unchecked.”

Where does the Public Fall on the Bill?

According to a YouGov poll by Index on Censorship, 82% of Britons said it was important they are protected from access by those employed by the messaging platform, increasing to 85% who want their private messages protected from individuals not employed by the platform.

Even so, it is difficult to properly gauge the public mindset and parents themselves are often at a loss on how to regulate their children’s internet safety, turning to the government now for guidance.

The campaign Legal to Say, Legal to Type. is pressing for amendments to the bill which would protect encryption and private messaging, as well as ensuring the freedom of expression.

Now, it is up to the committee to make further decisions regarding the landmark bill.