41–50 of 110 posts
While I'm not a supporter of the Online Safety Bill, I do find that the opprobrium that it has inspired is consistently hyperbolic. The Online Safety Bill bans nothing . What it does do is create a regulatory framework for the Office for Communications (aka Ofcom, HM Government's regulator for the communications industry) to operate and enforce. The regulatory framework is based around risk assessments, and sets out…
While I'm not a supporter of the Online Safety Bill, I do find that the opprobrium that it has inspired is consistently hyperbolic. The Online Safety Bill bans nothing . What it does do is create a regulatory framework for the Office for Communications (aka Ofcom, HM Government's regulator for the communications industry) to operate and enforce. The regulatory framework is based around risk assessments, and sets out…
While I'm not a supporter of the Online Safety Bill, I do find that the opprobrium that it has inspired is consistently hyperbolic. The Online Safety Bill bans nothing . What it does do is create a regulatory framework for the Office for Communications (aka Ofcom, HM Government's regulator for the communications industry) to operate and enforce. The regulatory framework is based around risk assessments, and sets out…
It sounds like you're chiding others for complaining about the bill, and excusing this because the bill "only" enables mass surveillance and anti-privacy measures, rather than stipulating them. Might be I'm reading you wrong on this, but that's what I'm taking away. > What this all means is that the bill will only have the effects that the government has said it will in its press releases. I don't really believe that…
> And it seems Apple and others don't believe it either.
Yes, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Signal, Meta, and all the other big players else who has turned up to the committee hearings will have their activities curtailed. Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry.
Comment section on your personal blog?
Exempt under "Schedule 1 — Exempt user-to-user and search services"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you're chiding others for complaining about the bill, and excusing this because the bill "only" enables mass surveillance and anti-privacy measures, rather than stipulating them. Might be I'm reading you wrong on this, but that's what I'm taking away. > What this all means is that the bill will only have the effects that the government has said it will in its press releases. I don't really believe that…
I am chiding people, not for complaining, but for misunderstanding the surrounding context. Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it. > And it seems Apple and others don't believe it either. Yes, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Signal, Meta, and all the other big players else who has turned up to the committee hearings will have their activities curtailed. Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for…
Because they're too insignificant to matter, or because they won't be covered by the law? It sounds like the former, but you seem to imply the latter.
While I'm not a supporter of the Online Safety Bill, I do find that the opprobrium that it has inspired is consistently hyperbolic. The Online Safety Bill bans nothing . What it does do is create a regulatory framework for the Office for Communications (aka Ofcom, HM Government's regulator for the communications industry) to operate and enforce. The regulatory framework is based around risk assessments, and sets out…
Context matters, and given the context of where we are as a country at the moment, how trustworthy our current government has (not) turned out to be, and even where they are in the election cycle - currently heading for being out of office for a decade - not to mention them pushing to leave the European convention on human rights, I'm a lot more concerned about the potential dangers of this bill than I might have been in a different context.
Even if you're right and I'm wrong, this statement seems a bit naive! (with respect):
> the bill will only have the effects that the government has said it will in its press releases.
Edit: I tend to put a lot of stock into analysis put out by the EFF [0]. I think they said it well here:
> If it passes, the Online Safety Bill will be a huge step backwards for global privacy, and democracy itself. Requiring government-approved software in peoples’ messaging services is an awful precedent. If the Online Safety Bill becomes British law, the damage it causes won’t stop at the borders of the U.K.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/uk-government-very-clo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am chiding people, not for complaining, but for misunderstanding the surrounding context. Legislation is only as powerful as those enforcing it. > And it seems Apple and others don't believe it either. Yes, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Signal, Meta, and all the other big players else who has turned up to the committee hearings will have their activities curtailed. Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for…
> Individuals running Minecraft and Mastodon servers for their friends needn't worry. Because they're too insignificant to matter, or because they won't be covered by the law? It sounds like the former, but you seem to imply the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exempt under "Schedule 1 — Exempt user-to-user and search services"
Is a comment section user-to-user, though? On its face, it seems more user-to-public, since it's not a private user-to-user transmission. If blog comment sections are exempt, it would seem Reddit is exempt too.
“provider content” means content published on a service by the provider of the service or by a person acting on behalf of the provider.
It's unclear if there's a difference between hosting your own blog, or using a blogging service, because the bill is terrible.
My understanding is that the OSB creates a responsibility for Ofcom to create a regulatory system for discouraging online harms. Has Ofcom actually said what these regulations will be? Is there any reason to expect them to be as dystopian as you predict? The interim codes of practice that the government published don't even apply at all to individuals. They also acknowledge that smaller companies should not be expect…
Previous laws relating to policing and investigatory powers have been widely criticised by civil rights groups for their overreach and lack of effective oversight and safeguards. We now know that some of those laws have in fact been abused in ways the critics predicted.
Secondary legislation has been widely criticised when used as a vehicle for government ministers to make rules with statutory authority while bypassing the usual requirements for Parliamentary scrutiny and approval of new laws. Our Home Secretary is currently attempting to use secondary legislation to implement controversial immigration policies after essentially the same measures were already explicitly blocked by Parliament when they were put forward via primary legislation.
So yes - there are unfortunately plenty of precedents both for broad legal powers being abused and for secondary legislation being used to circumvent our normal democratic processes for scrutinising and approving controversial measures.
There also seems to be no good reason to assume that the regulator that would be given these new powers and responsibilities actually has the necessary resources or expertise to understand the issues and perform their new role properly.
None of this looks encouraging and for rules that could have a profound effect on (among other things) our personal safety and the democratic integrity of our country it seems fair to question whether passing a very broad law that delegates the implementation details to a regulator that may or may not be competent to regulate these areas is really a good idea.
While I'm not a supporter of the Online Safety Bill, I do find that the opprobrium that it has inspired is consistently hyperbolic. The Online Safety Bill bans nothing . What it does do is create a regulatory framework for the Office for Communications (aka Ofcom, HM Government's regulator for the communications industry) to operate and enforce. The regulatory framework is based around risk assessments, and sets out…
While I support some more measured analysis to counter the hyperbole, you're making some strong assertions about what this bill will and won't mean, and I don't think you can have any more certainty about these than those people who are assuming a far worse outcome. Context matters, and given the context of where we are as a country at the moment, how trustworthy our current government has (not) turned out to be, and…
But I will think this quote from one of the bill's most dogged critics is illustrative[0]:
> ... this Bill, whatever DCMS and its ministers may claim, is not a “fixing” Bill, one which has been designed to be constructive and positive in order to fix problems. It is a “getting” Bill, once which has been designed to be vindictive and negative in order to get specific companies. OnlyFans in this particular example, the usual suspects in others.
> The second is that this Bill has been designed by people who are so out of touch that OnlyFans is their idea of the average small digital business.
> And the third is that this Bill has been designed by people who are so out of touch that they think the harms issues raised by OnlyFans are the harms issues in the average small digital business.
As for your distrust of the government, my opinion on this comes from that same position. My complacency rests not on their goodwill (because I don't think they have any) but on their disinterest in actually understanding anything.
[0] https://webdevlaw.uk/2022/07/13/heres-why-your-project-is-in...