UK Expands Online Safety Act to Mandate Preemptive Scanning

Post by doublerabbit » Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 1:30 PM UTC

hexbin010 wrote: post #77

netsharc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, even knowing this, you have to admit there's probably a lot more unsolicited than solicited ones...

Who knows, I haven't searched for unbiased data to be honest But they can be more judicious with whom they share contact details, and use the block button. They are not forced to be the recipient of any message. Do you think the only solution is for a government backdoor?

Post by t0bia_s » Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 1:38 PM UTC

yladiz wrote: post #57

HPsquared wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things you mention are already illegal. The effective proven solution is to enforce existing laws, to punish and deter bad behaviour like any other crime. This incongruence is why a lot of people don't take the reasoning at face value and see it as only rhetorical justification for increased surveillance, which is widely understood as something the state wants do do anyway.

How do you deal with a crime that isn’t reported due to things like shame? Not to say that we need to scan messages to enforce nudes not to be sent, but I don’t think you can say “just enforce existing laws” and be done with it, it’s not that simple.

Post by netsharc » Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 1:51 PM UTC

hexbin010 wrote: post #77

netsharc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, even knowing this, you have to admit there's probably a lot more unsolicited than solicited ones...

Who knows, I haven't searched for unbiased data to be honest But they can be more judicious with whom they share contact details, and use the block button. They are not forced to be the recipient of any message. Do you think the only solution is for a government backdoor?

Post by jpfromlondon » Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

flumpcakes wrote: post #60

jpfromlondon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>too many people leave morality at the door Yep, that's life, if something bothers you and it's already a crime then report it. There is precious little in life that can be undertaken without some risk of something unwanted however small (hah).

> Yep, that's life, if something bothers you and it's already a crime then report it. I think that's the issue with this, and why we are seeing new laws introduced. If someone is assaulted in real life, the police can intervene. If people are constantly assaulted at a premises, that premise can lose it's license (for example a pub or bar). When moving to the online space, you are now potentially in contact with billi…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 13, 2026, 2:03 PM UTC

flumpcakes wrote: post #86

munksbeer wrote: post #72

> 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. If this is implemented as it reads, just a note to everyone else, everywhere in the world: For this policy to work, everything must be scanned. So now, every time you communicate with someone in the UK, your c…

Well, yes, because it is designed to protect UK citizens. As much as GDPR applies "everywhere in the world" when interacting with EU citizens. Just as much as my communications are scanned when interacting with US citizens with PRISM. I'd argue that is exponentially more dangerous and nefarious given it's apparently illegality and (once) top secrecy.