UK’s Online Safety Bill falls short on protecting speech and tackling harms, warns committee – TechCrunch


Another British Parliamentary Commission has considered a controversial government plan to regulate Internet content with a broad focus on “safety.”

Digital, Culture, Media, Sports (DCMS) Commission, warning in detail Report Today, the bill has “urgent concerns” and is “clear enough to address various types of illegal and harmful content between users and search services, without properly protecting freedom of expression. And not robust. “

Among the myriad concerns of the Commission is how the bill vaguely defines different types of harm, such as illegal content and designation of harm. Components (such as codes of conduct) are not yet on the table as they are subject to secondary laws.

Its general ambiguity, coupled with the complexity associated with choosing a “duty of care” approach, actually falls into several specific obligations (content that poses a risk to children against illegal content. Also, in the case of a subset of high-risk P2P services, content that poses a risk to adults) — in the Commission’s view, the proposed framework may not be able to achieve the required “comprehensive safety regime”. Means there is.

According to the committee, the bill also creates a risk of freedom of expression. It recommends that the government incorporate a balance test from the regulatory agency Ofcom to assess whether the platform “properly balances its obligations of freedom of expression with decision making.”

The risk of the platform responding to sudden unclear liability for a wide range of content by over-removing speech has a chilling effect on UK freedom of expression, but against the bill presented by the Commission. It is one of the many criticisms raised. Pick up.

It suggests that the government will restructure the definition of safety obligations associated with harmful content in order to submit a bill. Compliant with international human rights law — Excessive by providing “minimal criteria for determining provider actions, systems, and processes for dealing with harm, including automatic or algorithmic moderation of content.” To try to protect against the risk of deletion.

Even with regard to child safety, a major issue that the British minister has repeatedly fixed to the bill, the Commission has flagged the bill’s “weaknesses” and the proposed regime is “appropriately addressing the reality of the problem.” It claims to mean “no”.

They called for the government to take further steps in this area, expanding the bill to include bread crumbs (also known as “perpetrators deliberately overturning criminal activity thresholds and removing content through service offerings”). Asked to cover the “technically legal” practices of. “) — Quoting witness testimony, which is not really illegal, but suggests that practice,” nevertheless forms part of the online CSEA sequence. [child sexual exploitation and abuse]”.

Similarly, the Commission will further the bill to protect women and girls from the types of online violence and abuse specifically directed at them, such as “female technical response’nude’and deepfake pornography’). It suggests that it is necessary.

Regarding Ofcom’s platform research authority, the Commission argues that the platform needs to be further strengthened. Encourage regulators to authorize them to “perform a confidential audit or review of the service’s system to evaluate actual operation and output.” Also, by “requesting general information about how the service distributes content,” the MP needs to provide more specific details about the types of data that Ofcom can request from the platform. It suggests that there is (perhaps to avoid the risks required by the platform) to avoid effective monitoring).

However, with regard to enforcement, the Commission is concerned in the opposite direction, lacking clarity about how Ofcom’s (set) very substantive authority is used over the platform. I’m worried.

We recommend a series of adjustments, such as clarifying that these permissions apply only to services within scope.

The MP is also seeking a rewrite of the use of so-called “technical notices”. This allows regulators to mandate the use of new technologies (following the “permanent and general” failure of the duty of care). This power application is defined “more strictly” and is more practical information about the actions required to make a provider compliant and how Ofcom tests whether such power usage is proportional. You need to provide the details of.

Here, the Commission flags the issue of potential business disruption. It also suggests that the government will take the time to assess “whether these features will be adequately available in the future given the advent of technologies such as VPN and DNS over HTTPs.”

Other recommendations in the report include a bill request to clarify the subject of relief and judicial review.

The committee also warned that the government would establish a dedicated joint committee to oversee online security and digital regulation, and parliamentary scrutiny “existing independent, trans-party special commissioners. We will receive the best service from the Society, and will be proven and continued by the work we have done. ” What to do in this area. “

It is not yet known how much the government is paying attention to the Commission’s recommendations.Digital Secretary of State Nadine Dorries Previously proposed She is open to accepting Congressional feedback on a radical package of legislation.

The report by the DCMS Committee follows previous recommendations. December — A joint parliamentary committee focused on scrutinizing the bill warned that the bill risks failing to meet government safety goals.

Government drafts online safety bill May 2021 — An internet platform aimed at protecting users from a series of harms, whether related to (already illegal) content such as terrorist propaganda, child sexual abuse material, malicious language, etc. Make a long-term plan to impose the duty of care. Through broader but not necessarily illegal content, such as bullying, eating disorders, and content that encourages suicide (which can pose a disproportionate risk to young users of social media platforms).

Speaking of the November Joint Committee Dolly predicts This law heralds a systematic change to Internet culture. Tell MPs and peers that they will make a “huge and huge” change in the way Internet platforms operate.

The bill is still in parliament and covers a wide range of Internet platforms and envisions implementing security-focused governance standards through a regulated code of conduct. Substantial penalties for violations..

The wide range of regulations — the intent of the law to cover not only illegal content that spreads online, but also those that fall into the gray areas where restrictions risk affecting freedom of expression and speech — is a proposal. It means that it has received a great deal of criticism from the public from freedom and digital rights groups, and companies concerned about the burden of responsibility and compliance.

At the same time, the government Strengthen attacks against the use of end-to-end encryption on the platform — The deployment of rhetoric aimed at implying robust security is a barrier to catching pedophiles (for example). The government recently announced a NoPlaceToHide PR aimed at directing the public against E2E encryption.). Therefore, critics are also concerned that the minister is trying to destroy the security and privacy of the Internet by recreating good practices as a barrier to the goal of imposing “child safety” through mass digital surveillance.

In that regard, in recent months, the Home Office has also repelled a small amount of taxpayer cash in an attempt to accelerate the development of technology. Can be applied to the E2EE system to scan child sexual abuse materials — It claims that it may provide a midpoint between robust security and law enforcement data access requirements.

Critics of the bill have already argued for the use of children’s “protection” truncated claims as a populist lever to drive the removal of the strongest security and privacy protections from all Internet users. It sells “child protection” surveillance services — but much closer to gas lighting than protection.

When zooming out, there are also many concerns about the risks to the regulation of the UK digital economy.

And about the bill becoming a “hobby horse” for Congress of all sorts of online complaints A former Minister of State said that — Complex and undefined content regulations can put a disproportionate burden on UK start-ups and tech giants like Facebook. Its self-service algorithms and content moderation fuel the need for Internet regulation in the first place and are extremely harmful. For the human rights of British Internet users.

UK’s Online Safety Bill falls short on protecting speech and tackling harms, warns committee – TechCrunch Source link UK’s Online Safety Bill falls short on protecting speech and tackling harms, warns committee – TechCrunch

The post UK’s Online Safety Bill falls short on protecting speech and tackling harms, warns committee – TechCrunch appeared first on California News Times.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:


More like this

You’ve Got the Data. Why Can’t Your Developers Build with it?

By Chet Kapoor, Chairman and CEO, DataStax Customers demand experiences...

Scott Disick Showered with Birthday Tributes Days After Kourtney and Travis’ Wedding

Last weekend, Kourtney Kardashian married Travis Barker In Italy....

Dangerous Tanning Is on the Rise, Suntan Myths Persist

{"@context":"","@type":"MedicalWebPage","mainEntityOfPage":"","lastReviewed":"nulldate","reviewedBy":{"@type":"Person"},"about":"Melanoma","datePublished":"05/27/2022 08:00:40","headline":"Dangerous Tanning Is on the Rise, Suntan Myths...