The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The UK adopts an Online Safety Bill that allows regulation of encrypted messaging
Episode 473 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
Our headline story for this episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast is the UK's sweeping new Online Safety Act, which regulates social media in a host of ways. Mark MacCarthy spells some of them out, but the big surprise is encryption. U.S. encrypted messaging companies used up all the oxygen in the room hyperventilating about the risk that end-to-end encryption would be regulated and bragging about their determination to resist. As a result, journalists have paid little attention to any other provision in the past year or two. And even then, they got it wrong, gleefully claiming that the UK had backed down and stripped authority to regulate encrypted apps from the bill. Mark and I explain just how wrong they are. It was the messaging companies who blinked and who are now pretending they won.
In cybersecurity news, David Kris and I have kind words for DHS's report on how to coordinate cyber incident reporting. Unfortunately, there's a vast gulf between writing a good report on coordinating incident reporting and actually, you know, coordinating incident reporting. David also offers a generous view of the conservative catfight over section 702 of FISA between former Congressman Bob Goodlatte on one side and Michael Ellis and me on the other. The latest installment in that conflict is here.
If you need to catch up on the raft of antitrust lawsuits launched by the Biden administration, Gus Hurwitz has you covered. First, he explains what's at stake in the Justice Department's case against Google – and why we don't know more about it. Then he offers a preview of the imminent FTC case against Amazon. Followed by his criticism of Lina Khan's decision to name three Amazon execs as targets in the FTC's other big Amazon case – over Prime membership. Amazon is clearly Lina Khan's White Whale, but that doesn't mean that everyone who works should be sushi.
Mark picks up the competition law theme, explaining the UK competition watchdog's principles for AI regulation. Along the way, he shows that whether AI is regulated by one entity or several could have a profound impact on what kind of regulation AI gets.
I update listeners on the litigation over the Biden administration's pressure on social media companies to ban misinformation and use the story to plug the latest Cybertoonz commentary on the case. I also note the Commerce Department claim that its controls on chip technology have not failed because there's no evidence that China can make advanced chips "at scale." But the Commerce Department would say that, wouldn't they? Finally, for This Week in Anticlimactic Privacy News, I note that the UK has decided, following the EU ruling, that it too considers U.S. law "adequate" for purposes of transatlantic data transfers.
You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Does it ban end to end encryption?"
"No," weaseled the government weaselawyer. "We can, though, crack it open."
How nerds imagine it would go:
Government Agent: "Oh no! 1024-bit encryption. Foiled again!"
How it would actually go:
Government Agent: "Hitting him with a $5 wrench costs us $5. Instead, fine him 10% of global profits. Win win!"
For the record, it allows/requires lots of other unpleasantness too.
I'd have no qualms if tech companies decided to remove all services from the UK entirely.
I would
Then don't live under a repressive regime. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, the EU, Britain, Russia, etc
04:10 The Brookings clown, Mark MacCarthy, is all in on the idea that government restrictions on "harmful material" on the internet would have prevented the January 6 protest. Gotta stop the "online information disorder" that is the plebes learning non-government-approved information online. Big Brother knows best about what you should be allowed to see, according to him.
As usual, don't go to Baker for your tech news. The very article he links to claiming the tech companies "pretending they won" is a statement from Signal that they'll still pull out of the UK market if the government tries to ban E2EE, demonstrating that they're still concerned and hardly claiming victory. In fact, the same source acknowledged that the compromise leading to the passage of the legislation was a "fudge".
The idea that you can detect child porn in messages without completely breaking the encryption of all other materials is absurd.
Would you prefer this cite? https://twitter.com/mer__edith/status/1699440007147040936
There is nothing in the article about Signal you linked that can reasonably be construed as "pretending they won". But then you seem to consistently have this problem with your sources not saying what you claim they say. Maybe your claim can be supported by some other source, but since you often deliberately mislead I'm not inclined to believe you just posted the wrong one. In fact the only reasonable reading it that they know they lost, because she's announcing their intent to leave if Ofcom interprets the law in such a way that would require them to implement broken encryption. In the embedded video, she's even more negative about it, characterizing it as failure.
You also mischaracterized the other article as "gleefully claiming" they UK backed down. It makes no such claim. It just points out the plausible deniability of not *explicitly* banning E2EE.
I'm entirely unsurprised someone who's never met a digital privacy invasion by the government he didn't love has a lot of difficulty making honest arguments around the topic.
In the context of suggestions that Signal would pull out if the encryption provision were adopted, claiming that they'll pull out if it's *used* against them is a big climbdown, and it's accompanied by claims that the modest changes should be seen as a "win." https://twitter.com/mer__edith/status/1699440007147040936
The headline of the piece I linked to is "UK passes the Online Safety Bill — and no, it doesn’t ban end-to-end encryption." Sounds like some gleeful claiming to me.
By the way, I'm not sure why Stewart linked to a previous version of the bill. The whole parliamentary page is here: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
Just click on the document listed as the "current version of the bill". (Which, at the time of writing, is the version awaiting royal assent.)