Privacy – one of the most fundamental rights in any free society – is under threat from the U.K. Government’s Online Safety Bill, which is currently making its way through the House of Lords, writes Conservative MP David Davis in Spiked. The central issue is the undermining of encryption. Here’s an excerpt.
Encryption might sound like a niche technical term, but it lies at the heart of communication in the modern world. Anyone who uses WhatsApp, Signal or similar apps benefits from it. Journalists, whistleblowers and political dissidents all rely on it. And so does our financial system. Without encryption, transactions and trades would be incredibly vulnerable.
What’s more, our national security depends on encryption. It allows the sharing of sensitive military and intelligence information. The dangers of having lax privacy protections have been laid bare in numerous scandals in the past couple of decades, most recently the leak of Pentagon documents about the war in Ukraine.
Despite this, the Government wants to weaken our privacy protections. Its stated justification is that it wants to tackle child abuse online. That is a noble aim, but the bill would mean companies will have to find ways to stop users encountering harmful content in private messages. That is a problem, because it will probably force those companies to check all private messages on their platforms.
What’s worse, the bill will allow Ofcom, the communications regulator, to compel companies to use “accredited technology” to check private messages. And most of the technologies that have been approved so far are seen by experts as incompatible with encryption.
The likes of WhatsApp are gravely concerned about all this. In the past few weeks, WhatsApp joined many of its competitors in signing an open letter calling on the government to change track. The bill “could break end-to-end encryption”, the letter said, “opening the door to routine, general and indiscriminate surveillance of personal messages”. The largest providers are threatening to leave the U.K. market if they are forced to dump end-to-end encryption.
The bill, then, will make Britain unattractive for digital businesses, at the same time as putting us at risk of greater exposure to fraudsters and hackers. And most worryingly of all, it will lay the ground for one of the most serious infringements of our right to privacy in modern times. It may end up meaning there are no ways to have a truly private conversation without fear of the Government or Big Tech sticking their noses in. That is clearly a free-speech issue. As Index on Censorship has put it, “promoting and defending encryption is essential for any organisation that promotes and defends free speech”.
When governments seek to curtail privacy, they usually say it is necessary for people’s safety. In that sense, this power-grab by the Government fits the usual trend. It also means that this is likely just the beginning of a wider erosion of privacy rights online. When the Government finds out that, despite its best efforts, it cannot completely purge child abuse content from the internet, it will inevitably demand tougher, more invasive measures. And even if it is not the current Government that does this, future Governments may use the bill as a basis on which to demand more general surveillance of private messages.
Davis concludes: “In trying to do the impossible – eliminating risk from the internet – the Government is actually exposing us to far greater risks.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There is no tyranny worse than the one that hounds you for YOUR OWN GOOD. They NEVER sleep.
How does the weakening of encryption for the purposes of increased
surveillancesafety square with the inexorable push to force us to use CBDC which – theoretically – would require more than currently available tocontrolprotect all those additional digital payments? Or is the answer self-evident?If you believe this is about protecting children you’re probably desperate for your next booster.
Ah yes, protecting children. They haven’t managed that so far with grooming gangs rife in this country:
Manchester – the sainted Maggie Oliver lifted the lid.
Oldham – OMBC and Fuerher Burnham still refusing a proper inquiry.
Rochdale – still problems after a few token convictions.
Rotherham – ongoing.
Norwich, Bristol and most Northern towns.
And now we have the sexualisation of children in schools with bloody Queer Hour and Drag Queens and masturbation for four year olds. So obviously The Online Safety Bill is designed to protect children. A more direct lie could not be invented.
David Davies has at least raised his voice but it is too little too late. This crap has been in the planning for years.
The real fightback should have kicked in to gear March 20th 1920 but the cowards in Westminster rolled over and each month privacies and freedoms have been stolen and nothing said bar a lot of lies.
“To protect the children.”
Oh do firk off!
My thoughts exactly.
Contrast the purported concerns about protecting the children with the recent article concerning the teacher sacked for not using the “correct pronouns” for an 8 year old who thinks they are in the wrong body!
Spot on Dr.
Steve Martin said it all many years ago in this famous skit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uVUSBi3u0E
In fact they can’t wait to inject our children with another lethal shot…
Good for him for saying so but you wonder how he can continue to be a member of the Conservative party.
Davis and a few others such as Redwood and Baker appear to play a strategic role in playing to centre Right voter base but are party loyalists to the top of their boots.
This theatrical group have not changed the Leftwards drift of the party for thirty years. Fake Tories like the rest of them
Redwood apparently claimed to TCW that he voted against all the lockdown measures. Not true. He was late to the party. I think only Swayne voted NO in all of them. Hard to credit anyone who stays in that party and claims to be conservative with any credibility.
Page 1, section A of How To Start A Dictatorship. Invoke the safety of The Children.
The government concerned about online child abuse they are taking the p**s.
Covid psyop and fear mongering
Climate emergancy fear porn
Forced to wear face masks
School closures
Toxic gene therapies
Sex education/gender realignment
Add to the list as you see fit.
The online safety bills are happening across the globe these are top down instructions coming from the WEF. They don’t give 2 s**ts about children.
100%
