Government Claims It Won’t Use Powers in Online Safety Bill to Scan Messaging Apps

Lawmakers say 'appropriate technology doesn’t exist'

Social media apps displayed on a mobile phone screen on Jan. 3, 2018. Yui Mok/PA

The UK government has claimed it won’t use powers in the Online Safety Bill to scan messaging apps for harmful content after saying the technology to do it doesn’t yet exist.

Lawmakers have said that a clause in the upcoming online safety laws that would have allowed regulators access to private messages sent using end-to-end encryption won’t be enforced.

Tech companies such as Signal called it “a victory” though fears remain that encryption-breaking surveillance in the so-called ”spy clause” Clause 122 could still be introduced one day.

In a Wednesday afternoon statement to the House of Lords, Tory peer junior arts and heritage minister Lord Stephen Parkinson confirmed that regulator Ofcom cannot “issue a requirement which is not technically feasible.”

The bill, which is in its final stages. will give Ofcom, the communications regulator traditionally responsible for regulating sectors including TV, radio, fixed-line and mobile phones, and the postal services, power to regulate the internet.

“If the appropriate technology doesn’t exist which meets those requirements, then Ofcom will not be able to use clause 122 to require its use,” said Lord Parkinson.

“This bill will establish a vital regulatory framework making the internet safe for all, particularly for children. We are now closer than ever to achieving that important goal,” he said.

“In a matter of months from royal assent companies will be required to put in place protections to tackle illegal content on their services or face huge fines,” he added.

Conservative Peer Lord Moylan has previously told NTD’s “British Thought Leaders” programme that handing powers to “independent and unaccountable” regulators is a “hopeless set-up for in a democratic society” and “totally offensive to democratic principles.”

During the House of Lords debate, Lord Moylan said the Bill “does not address the fact that end-to-end encryption will be breached if Ofcom finds a way of doing what the Bill empowers it to do, so why have we empowered it to do that?”

He added that he was concerned about “this bizarre governance structure where decisions of crucial political sensitivity are being outsourced to an unaccountable regulator. ”

‘Spy clause’

Activists such as Amnesty International have called Clause 122 a “spy clause,” as they feared that the Bill could see the private sector forced to carry out mass surveillance of private digital communications.

WhatsApp and Signal have long claimed that the bill is a threat to users’ privacy and security and welcomed the latest development and have threatened to quit the UK.

Will Cathcart, Head of WhatsApp, wrote on X (formally known as Twitter) that the “fact remains that scanning everyone’s messages would destroy privacy as we know it.”

“That was as true last year as it is today. WhatsApp will never break our encryption and remains vigilant against threats to do so,” he added.

Meredith Whittaker President Of Signal said that Of course this isn’t a total victory. We would have loved to see this in the text of the law itself. But this is nonetheless huge, and insofar as the guidance for implementation will have the force to shape Ofcom’s implementation framework, this is, again, very big and very good.

In March, Meredith Whittaker President Of Signal warned that the bill contains provisions that are “positioned to undermine encryption, and could create an unprecedented regime of mass surveillance that would all but eliminate the ability of people in the UK to communicate with each other outside of government interference.”

The upcoming bill on regulating online spaces will still force Google, X (formally known as Twitter), Meta (formerly Facebook), and others, to abide by a code of conduct overseen by Ofcom, and remove “legal, but harmful” content.

Under the bill, the biggest social media platforms must carry out risk assessments on the types of harms that could appear on their services and how they plan to address them, setting out how they will do this in their terms of service.

Kids on Social Media

On Wednesday, Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan said that social media firms must deactivate underaged children’s accounts or risk fines.

Despite being under the minimum age requirement (13 for most social media sites), 33 percent of 5-7s and twice as many 8-11s (60 percent) said they had a social media profile, according to the regulator Ofcom.

“We’ve got kids as young as nine, eight-year-olds on social media platforms and also accessing things like pornography,” said Ms Donelan.

“We can’t expect these young children to grow up and be able to live happy, successful lives unless we’re setting them up right. That is important. That’s why these changes are going to make a massive difference.”

She added: “If the [companies] are found by the regulator to be allowing young people on their platform below the age of 13, they could face these massive humongous fines.

“If they continue to ignore that they could even face potentially criminal liability. So this is a massive deterrent to ensure that social media companies take this seriously.”

The Epoch Times contacted the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for comment.