An alarming shift has been taking place within the Lib Dem Parliamentary Party over the last few months. Spearheaded by MPs such as Munira Wilson, Danny Chambers, and, most alarmingly for me, Vikki Slade, we are apparently now back to advocating for a ban on social media for children and supporting a ban on images depicting nudity being stored on their devices.
I am very worried that the Party has not thought about how this could plausibly be implemented. I fear that once this dam breaks, once we move past a “think of the children” argument over a moral panic, then the same software which this policy requires will be able to be reused for surveillance and censorship. I worry that we are unknowingly advocating for the implementation of the sort of intrusion usually reserved for times of war, not to mention encroaching on Article 8 of the ECHR.
Article 8 of the ECHR is the famous right to privacy, which is the idea that people have the right to live their lives free from unreasonable and unnecessary intrusion from others, including the state. Government mandated spyware would very much fall into breach of that. This policy would require all phones to have specialist software which scans every outgoing or incoming image for signs of nudity. Client-Side Scanning essentially turns the user’s own device into a state informant. It breaks end-to-end encryption by scanning the image before it is encrypted, creating a permanent backdoor that can easily be repurposed for political censorship or surveillance. This is highly problematic. It is also very possible, and cannot be dismissed, that this image scanning software could be further weaponised to censor other things which are currently legal, such as same sex relationships and intimacy.
I personally feel that Article 8 extends to under 18s. Indeed, this is what the UN says, under Article 16 of the UNCRC. Children and teenagers aren’t stupid; they are developing citizens with a right to autonomy, and they will easily find ways around this (as we have already seen in Australia). Production of indecent imagery of children is illegal for very good reason, as it is morally reprehensible, and you’ll never see me advocate for that to be permitted. But my concern here is… what’s next? What’s to say that this same software is then used to enforce conformity by restricting what can and cannot be said online, regardless of whether the user is an adult or not? Why does this command such support when multiple (1,2,3) children’s charities have said it’s a bad idea?
We should be treating this with the same vigorous opposition we have always had to mandatory identification cards. We would say that the State opening and reading private letters or emails is wrong and an invasion of privacy, so why are we suddenly so in favour of surveillance of other forms of communication? It feels deeply hypocritical and against our pro-privacy values. The Liberal Democrats proudly opposed the Investigatory Powers Bill in 2016, so I dearly want to know what on earth has changed, and why we are now advocating for and supporting this dystopian and Orwellian approach to keeping children safe. We should not be trying to replace ordinary parental responsibility with intrusive state oversight and surveillance. Children need to be kept safe, but they have rights too, and that includes a right to privacy.
To echo the words of a great man: “I am a Liberal, and I am against this sort of thing.”
* Tara Foster is a LibDem campaigner from Southampton. She sits on the LGBT+ LibDems Executive as an Ordinary Member and is a prominent member of the Radical Association.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The making of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)
Taking the goats to Lobley Hill.
What would it take for Capita to be banned from government contracts?
Calling out the anti-asylum seeker nonsense
Jason Connor
Jana
paul barker
Mick Taylor
Nonconformistradical
11 Comments
“An alarming shift …… supporting a ban on images depicting nudity being stored on their devices.”
Has the author not heard of girls sharing pictures with boys who then share with their friends ? of boys and girls tricked in to sharing pictures which are then used to blackmail them ?
Ironically the first article that she links to saying : ” multiple (children’s charities have said it’s a bad idea?” actually says the opposite :
“Roxy Longworth, author and founder of Behind Our Screens, said: “I told myself, back in 2021, that if I went public with what happened to me and it stopped one life from being ruined, then it was worth it, but the more I campaigned the angrier I became.
“Every child needs to be protected from platforms who for far too long have been allowed to turn a blind eye to the damage being done to them. This announcement makes me hopeful that there won’t be kids sat in their room feeling the same pressure and shame that consumed my teenage years.”
Likewise, Chris Sherwood, chief exec at the NSPCC, said: “Every day these protections are not in place, more children will continue to face devastating harm in the online world. That’s why we strongly support the government’s decision to make it mandatory for these companies to block inappropriate material at device level. This marks a major step forward in our fight against online child sexual abuse.”
https://www.theregister.com/security/2026/06/09/signal-uks-child-nude-block-threat-wont-protect-children/5252761
Agreed. We are far too smart as a party to abandon our liberal values to pretend that social media and photo bans will be effective. The method by which we would have to allow EVERYONE’s phones to be searched for EVERY photo, as well as making people provide things like biometrics to Thiel backed companies like Persona is the main reason we should be opposing these authoritarian measures. We should also look at Spain and even the uk where earlier bans are a resounding failure. We can and should make social media companies contol their algorithms and we can and should make phone companies and parents and schools better police the age at which kids get phones without child safe features but were making huge security mistakes here and we will be judged harshly when the hacks and spying that’s inevitable comes to light.
Hi Simon
“Has the author not heard of girls sharing pictures with boys who then share with their friends ? of boys and girls tricked in to sharing pictures which are then used to blackmail them ?”
Both of these examples are already covered in law and are illegal. They do not require a massive invasion of privacy to deal with, and schools already have a robust system to deal with it. I make clear in the article that this is illegal for very good reason.
With regard to client-side image scanning, the danger of mission creep are real, but I have other concerns. One is whether this is truly a practical and effective measure. The Goverment says that this should be implemented on *all* devices, new and existing, within 3 months. This won’t happen, because while the technology exists in limited forms eg in Google Messages, it isn’t hooked into all camera apps and messaging services, and also children are often using second-hand or hand-me-down phones that are no longer getting software updates from the manufacturer. The Government hasn’t said anything about how this will be enforced on laptops or desktop PCs with webcams.
To work, it will also require a big expansion of age verification, which has plenty of privacy concerns of its own.
Introducing impractical laws that won’t work but add security and privacy risks, while crying “think of the children”, is just theatre.
On the social media ban, while online harms are a real risk, the answer shouldn’t be to regulate and surveil the *victims*, we should be targeting the perpetrators and the platforms that enable them. And just like with porn age verification, kids will find ways round it.
There are solutions already available for adding parental controls on phones. Most parents don’t use them.
I think the EU and UK needs to support not for profit, social media platforms that put the interest of the public, vulnerable people, young people, and nation as key.
I love Amazon, you tube, rumble, and WhatsApp.
But would we allow foreign nations no matter how important to dominate any part of our media environment?
Would we be happy if newspapers, TV stations, or magazines with high audiences were all owend by foreign billionaires
Especially if the tech companies native countries were capable of slipping toward far right extremism, putting profit first above safety?
Solution.
Domestic supported public Independent run social media platforms with safety and the nation at Interest.
It would be expensive, but it could be in the UK and EU interests.
Maybe a special UK based public independent not for profit social media platform for children?
I am really shocked by the amount of influence that non liberals have managed to gain within the party recently. I had worried it would happen when we allowed Change UK folks to join us but instead it’s happening now, such that the Green party has now consistently been more liberal than us on pretty much every issue.
And the really daft thing is we’ve not likely gained any votes on this issue even if people say they support increased censorship in an opinion polls it’s not driving their voting behaviour. The only issues where we can be authoritarian and actually win votes are on crime and immigration, and since we’re not going to do that (hopefully) then why the hell can’t we be Liberal?
Tanya – your logic seems to be ‘ if something is illegal we don’t need to do anything else to stop it’. Presumably because burglary is illegal you don’t lock your front door before leaving home.
The action required is with the soc media companies . If they dont act then close them down is the only solution.. They will then act.
Children should be able to understand that bad behaviour has consequences and that those who behave badly make things worse for us all as that beviour is tackled.
We have all known for a long time that huge damage is being done to our society and particularly young people by the addictive and almost lawless consequence-free nature of smart technology, but successive governments have done nothing even remotely effective to deal with it. Like Tony Blair with smart phone use by drivers, too little is done too late to prevent the bad habits becoming the norm and the genie is out of control.
The British liberal democratic system of law broadly works when it is supported and voluntarily complied with by the vast majority of its people, not when hugely complex and expensive enforcement procedures have to be proposed and developed to enforce it. What it takes is judgement from its political leaders, straightforward solutions that can be seen to be being complied with and therefore largely self policing.
However, while Tara is right when responding to Simon’s comment about girls sharing pictures of themselves which boys then share with their friends and so on by saying it is already illegal, the problem is the law comes in way too late and way too expensively to deal with the huge damage already caused.
However, while references to Article 8 and 16 are relevant, they take far too long to explain and simply emphasise how slow this sort of attempt at undermining Labour’s proposals is.
What we need now is a bold simple solution based on prevention, not a learned discourse on what is theoretically wrong with Labour’s offering.
I’m so glad someone said this. There are many people against the Online Safety Act and I hate the only party consistently making noise against it is Reform. There’s been so many times when Labour has proposed an absolutely awful authoritarian policy only for the other two parties to say that it didn’t go far enough.
Reminder that over half a million people wanted the OSA repealed (and that was before this social media ban), and 3 million signed a petition against ID cards – which is what this clearly is via the back door.
What people don’t realise about the nudity ban is it seemingly affects all forms of nudity – including scuplture, art, etc. You can already imagine the potential problems. What if you wanted to share a picure of a rash with a doctor? What if you’re studying biology? And we know from experience today’s nudity will be tomorrow’s LGBTQ content or whatever. Signal the messaging app – which threatened to withdraw from the UK because of this – put out an amazing statemet everyone should read.
http://www.signal.org/blog/pdfs/2026-06-08-uk-surveillance-is-not-safety.pdf
Apple also say they can censor gore and violence – sounds amazing, right? Until you want to use your camera to document evidence of some crime and now find that you’re banned from taking the picture.
Steve J Smith: Яeform may claim to be against the Online “Safety” (sic) Act and other online “for the children” surveillance for the sake of getting a few votes, but wait until it is in a position of power. It’ll forget its opposition position entirely (as it will its support for electoral reform) and weaponise the new state surveillance power for political control. We really need to ask ourselves, when proposing any expansion of state power for whatever reason, “What might a future Яeform-led government do with these proposed new powers?”
@Simon McGrath:
Missing the point entirely. The proposed online state surveillance powers are the equivalent of banning door locks so that state agents can enter your home to check you are following the law.