Discussion
Loading...

Discussion

Log in
  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
Jim Killock
@jim@social.openrightsgroup.org  ·  activity timestamp last week

On #Skynews just now debating about the #onlinesafetyact; there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding even among former minister that there is any serious kind of free expression protections in the Act.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Gordonbp
@Gordonbp@fosstodon.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week
@jim I just don't understand how age verification for adult sites actually protects children from predators? Can someone explain who predators groom children through adult websites?
I know a young person who was groomed vis Snapchat. I bet this bill doesn't address that...
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jim Killock
@jim@social.openrightsgroup.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week
@Gordonbp It is about stopping children from encountering unsuitable content, rather than segregating adults and children.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Gordonbp
@Gordonbp@fosstodon.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week
@jim I know a young person who was groomed on Snapchat. Does this bill address that?
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jim Killock
@jim@social.openrightsgroup.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week

Yes there are clauses about duties to protect free expression, and IIRC clauses saying they should follow their terms and conditions, BUT

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jim Killock
@jim@social.openrightsgroup.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week

the mechanisms to protect free expression are really weak, except in the case of "journalistic content".

The duties for takedown however are very strong, and clear. The duties to ensure children do not encounter are clear.

Unfortunately this leads to a one way street.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jim Killock
@jim@social.openrightsgroup.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week

We also need to be deeply concerned about the way laws interact, such as the #PalestineAction proscription. Platforms are now obliged under the #onlinesafetyact to remove this "terrorist content". How then do they protect free speech, in the face of this clear duty?

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jim Killock
@jim@social.openrightsgroup.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week

Finally the idea that #dataprotection is sufficient for #ageverification is unfortunately incorrect. DP is permissive and it gets enforced when it goes wrong, and in the UK rarely if ever otherwise. We cannot have AV data getting leaked and abused.

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Steve Hill 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿🇪🇺
@steve@mastodon.nexusuk.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week
@jim data protection covers types of data that are both more and less sensitive than AV data. The fact that the ICO can't be arsed to enforce the law is a problem that needs to be fixed rather than treating AV data as somehow uniquely special.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Jim Killock
@jim@social.openrightsgroup.org replied  ·  activity timestamp last week
@steve I agree with that, but I think compulsory AV (as with some other types of data) deserves some extra rules that go above and beyond. For example, DP can't force providers to choose zero proof systems, nor can it oblige those deploying AV to offer a choice of (interoperable) AV tools to customers.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Log in

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.0-rc.2.6 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct