Online Safety Bill Etc

[RichardCoulter]

This mornings Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme featured an interesting interview with Michael Grade, the chair of Ofcom.

He answers some questions raised previously by Cableforum members and gives an outline of how the Onlne Safety Act will operate. Thousands of jobs have been created by websites to ensure that the new requirements are met.

The discussion then switched to the subject of GB News and he stated that Ofcom has to get the balance right between freedom of speech & expression and complaints made. I'm assuming, therefore, that this same view will be applied to the Online Safety Act.

The interview starts at about 0:54 here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001sg59

The problem with Michael Grade is he thinks the solution to any problem is cancelling Doctor Who.

[tweetiepooh]

There is a clause about browsers too. Browsers will have to code in trust of "government actors" so they can intercept and re-encrypt HTTPS without the browser highlighting that to the users. Companies do the same sort of thing on proxies, understandable, you are using their resource.
Essentially traffic will pass through a device that will decrypt the traffic, check the "plain text", then re-encrypt using the actors certificates. The browser "trusts" those certificates so won't complain. Browser makers may have to have versions for the snoop countries and for the "free" countries.
I guess you could get a "free" version but you would have lots of warnings about untrusted certificates. I'd also guess that the actors device would have to find a way to pass on any originating problems so you would still get warnings about "real" untrusted certificates.
I am not really interested about the workability of the solution here as the implications for secure communication.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

There is a clause about browsers too. Browsers will have to code in trust of "government actors" so they can intercept and re-encrypt HTTPS without the browser highlighting that to the users. Companies do the same sort of thing on proxies, understandable, you are using their resource.
Essentially traffic will pass through a device that will decrypt the traffic, check the "plain text", then re-encrypt using the actors certificates. The browser "trusts" those certificates so won't complain. Browser makers may have to have versions for the snoop countries and for the "free" countries.
I guess you could get a "free" version but you would have lots of warnings about untrusted certificates. I'd also guess that the actors device would have to find a way to pass on any originating problems so you would still get warnings about "real" untrusted certificates.
I am not really interested about the workability of the solution here as the implications for secure communication.

I imagine that this will be being done to flag up concerning searches for things like child porn, information on how to make a bomb, how to commit suicide etc.

I do think that this Act will always have to be a work in progress as technology is changing so fast. One new thing that's arisen is the use of images of real children being used to create child porn via the use of AI.

---------- Post added at 17:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The problem with Michael Grade is he thinks the solution to any problem is cancelling Doctor Who.

There has recently been some programmes about the history of Dr Who on BBC4 and a forthcoming programne on Radio 4 that you might be interested in.

[RichardCoulter]

Now that the Online Safety Act has been passed into law, Melanie Dawes from Ofcom is working on the codes of practice that websites must operate.

The safety of our children must take priority and, with this in mind, preventing them from accessing pornography is currently being looked at.

The average age that children first see pornography is 13 (though a quarter of children have come across pornography by age 11) and a shocking 10% of 9 year olds have seen pornographic material. By age 18 79% have been exposed to pornography that is coercive, degrading or involves pain inducing sex acts.

[Mr K]

Most of these proposed safeguards would easily got round by tech savvy children, some adults might struggle though!

I wonder if there is genuine desire to enforce this, or its just words.They've been on about this for years ( like protecting renters from no fault evictions), but delivered nothing.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Most of these proposed safeguards would easily got round by tech savvy children, some adults might struggle though!

I wonder if there is genuine desire to enforce this, or its just words.They've been on about this for years ( like protecting renters from no fault evictions), but delivered nothing.

Is there a genuine desire for this Government to do anything but to blow a whistle at rabid dogs?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Most of these proposed safeguards would easily got round by tech savvy children, some adults might struggle though!

I wonder if there is genuine desire to enforce this, or its just words.They've been on about this for years ( like protecting renters from no fault evictions), but delivered nothing.

I think so. When asked what would happen to websites that didn't comply she said that Ofcom would have a word with them. If this didn't work, compliance powers eg fines would be imposed. If this didn't work they would take steps to ensure that the site would no longer be accessible from the UK.

When asked about the possibility of people circumventing this she said that she accepts that this may be possible and that the legislation wasn't a golden bullet.

However, as most children tend to stumble onto pornography by accident, this should resolve most incidents.

When asked how those under 18 could be stopped from accessing pornography, she said that various methods were being looked at, including linking access to bank accounts (whilst maintaining privacy) and facial recognition to check someone looks over 18. No data would be stored, it would simply be used by adults to access pornographic sites and never retained.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

However, as most children tend to stumble onto pornography by accident, this should resolve most incidents.

This is nonsense, its not the early 2000's anymore, you dont stumble on porn by accident these days.
You would have to go looking for it, which of course young people do (and naturally, they deny it, or claim it as an "accident" if caught).

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I think so. When asked what would happen to websites that didn't comply she said that Ofcom would have a word with them. If this didn't work, compliance powers eg fines would be imposed. If this didn't work they would take steps to ensure that the site would no longer be accessible from the UK.

When asked about the possibility of people circumventing this she said that she accepts that this may be possible and that the legislation wasn't a golden bullet.

However, as most children tend to stumble onto pornography by accident, this should resolve most incidents.

When asked how those under 18 could be stopped from accessing pornography, she said that various methods were being looked at, including linking access to bank accounts (whilst maintaining privacy) and facial recognition to check someone looks over 18. No data would be stored, it would simply be used by adults to access pornographic sites and never retained.

Two suggestions on par with Trump shining his UV light and bleach comments.

Absolute gibberish spoken by people with no understanding.

[peanut]

The problem shouldn't about how or if you can access porn today, it should be about the content of what is normalised and classed as porn today. That is a much bigger problem. This needs to be address in schools before they get to the stage and age of searching online. Tricky but very much needed.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Paul

This is nonsense, its not the early 2000's anymore, you dont stumble on porn by accident these days.
You would have to go looking for it, which of course young people do (and naturally, they deny it, or claim it as an "accident" if caught).

Young people are just copying adults here
MP Caught Watching Porn In Parliament Claims He Was Looking At Tractors

[mrmistoffelees]

The question of personal responsibility and accountability still remains. a degree or parents use a device/internet as a baby sitter. since you can block content at a device, home network, or service provider level with considerable ease.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

The question of personal responsibility and accountability still remains. a degree or parents use a device/internet as a baby sitter. since you can block content at a device, home network, or service provider level with considerable ease.

Not all parents have the will or capability to utilise these tools and their children deserve to be protected too.

Examples of where porn has been stumbled upon include a search for 'Spice girls' and 'Bigger women fashion'.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Not all parents have the will or capability to utilise these tools and their children deserve to be protected too.

Examples of where porn has been stumbled upon include a search for 'Spice girls' and 'Bigger women fashion'.

"He believes…"