Live data from Hacker News

UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

reclaimthenet.org

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is implicitly allowing child pornography on his platform. There's no way around that. Apple/Google should have removed X a while ago.

Come on now. That's obviously not true. CSAM is absolutely banned on twitter, and all other American platforms.

[deleted]

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) It should be called the Ministry of Truth at this point. > Unwanted How do you know if a nude is unwanted? The premise itself makes no sense. The only way this could potentially work is if you had the whole context of the relationship somehow embedded in the messages and then if you deciphered the intent behind the messages. Even then what about sarcas…

Perhaps there should be a setting "Allow X" that has to be set on a contact. By default it is set to disallow nudes. I think this already exists by the way - screening potentially pornographic images and you have to explicitly confirm a choice to view it.

"Allow X" now that they are planning to ban X :)

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#43

So wait - would this be something like... you trying to send a dickpic via WhateverMessenger, the content would be scanned first and you would be presented with a message along the lines of "This message cannot be sent as it violates our T&Cs"?

More likely it would just silently not be sent, and potentially a week later you get a visit from the cops. Censors hate drawing attention to their actions, that is why you never see a "this message censored on government request" as sender or recipient.

This is where someone conflates it with anti-spam and acts confused, because showing such a notice for every spam message would make a service unusable. As if spam is equivalent, as if users cannot be given the choice to opt in/out of however much anti-spam and other filtering that they want as recipients, and as if "This was censored" messages cannot be collapsed/shown per category, e.g. "Messages blocked: 12 spam, 4 unwanted sexual content, 5 misinformation/lacking context, 7 hate/harmful content". As a rule, when someone raises an objection that can be resolved with less than 60 seconds of thought, they are not being genuine.

But more importantly, it would make it illegal to provide any kind of messaging software without government approval, which is only given by letting government-designated censorship and surveillance services act as middle-men. And then the law can be more or less strictly applied, depending how much the government dislikes the general sentiment that is spread on your network, regardless of its legality, thus controlling discourse.

I am not speculating here - this is what the UK government has admitted they want:

First, we are told, the relevant secretary of state (Michelle Donelan) expressed “concern” that the legislation might whack sites such as Amazon instead of Pornhub. In response, officials explained that the regulation in question was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but was about regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”, a phrase that rather gives away the political thinking behind the act. - https://archive.md/2025.08.13-190800/https://www.thetimes.co...

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#44
I understand the rage generated here, but what is the alternative?

If a service implements privacy invading 'features' then we have the choice not to use that service. Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL.

What are we to do if not monitor? And how to make that scalable if not to introduce automation?

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#45
Most of these comments I think are off the mark. For some reason anything to do with EU or the UK legislating to protect citizenry is seen as some Orwellian conspiracy to mind control people. I agree some of the policies feel like always using a hammer - but I strongly suspect it's because the tech industry is clearly not playing ball.

Children being sent dick pics, or AI generated nudes of them being sent around schools, etc. are real problems facing real normal people.

I think people here need to be reminded that the average person doesn't care about technology. They will be happy for their phones to automatically block nude pictures by Government rule if the tech companies do not improve their social safety measures. This is the double edged sword: these same people are not tech savvy enough to lock down their children's phones, they expect it to be safe, they paid money for it to be "safe", and even if you lock a phone down, it doesn't stopped their class mates sending them AI porn of other class mates.

Musk is living proof that a non zero number of these giant tech companies are happy for child porn ("fake" or not) to be posted on their platform. If I was in his shoes, it would be pretty high up on my list to make sure Grok isn't posting pornography. It's not hard to be a good person.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#46

Sex Pistols are more actual than ever. God save the Queen The fascist regime It made you a moron Potential H-bomb God save the Queen She ain't no human being There is no future In England's dreaming Don't be told what you want to want to And don't be told what you want to need There's no future, no future No future for you

They were also about the only people to call out Savile while he was alive.

Actual abusers are fine. Talking about it is the problem.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is implicitly allowing child pornography on his platform. There's no way around that. Apple/Google should have removed X a while ago.

Come on now. That's obviously not true. CSAM is absolutely banned on twitter, and all other American platforms.

Grok AI generating child pornography has been a leading news story in the British press for the past few days.

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#48

I understand the rage generated here, but what is the alternative? If a service implements privacy invading 'features' then we have the choice not to use that service. Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL. What are we to do if not monitor? And how to make that scalable if not to introduce autom…

> Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL.

I completely agree with this point.

We also have some tech companies (X) openly hostile to the UK Government. At what point does a sovereign country say "you're harming the people here and refuse to change, you're blocked".

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#49

I understand the rage generated here, but what is the alternative? If a service implements privacy invading 'features' then we have the choice not to use that service. Letting tech companies self-regulate has failed, and too many people leave morality at the door when engaging online, something which doesn't happen at scale IRL. What are we to do if not monitor? And how to make that scalable if not to introduce autom…

Goodbye all small independent forums with no AI budgets. An attacker posts a nude picture, 18m fine from OfCom ("whichever is larger", not proportional to revenue)

Re: UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

#50
Okay, everyone here is talking about dick pics but let's be clear here the goal is

>A major expansion of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) has taken effect, legally obliging digital platforms to deploy surveillance-style systems that scan, detect, and block user content before it can be seen.

Do we really believe that no government forever is not going to use this to prevent certain "misinformation" from circulating?

And by misinformation we mean things like MPs breaking COVID lock down rules or "problematic" information about the PM being involved in a scandal, or the list is endless.

Let's be clear this isn't at all and never has been about dick pics this is 100% about being able to control what you can see and share.

Post reply on HN