We are the party of civil liberties – that is what, we would argue, should be an uncontested fact. From the Snoopers Charter to campaigning for equal rights for minority communities, it is the raison d’être of the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party before us to stand up for civil liberties, recognising that the role of the state is not to micromanage or infringe on people’s core rights.
This belief is why we at Liberal Reform are so opposed to the Online Safety Act (OSA). Fundamentally, legislation should seek to make a positive difference to the lives of people it effects.
So why is this legislation so flawed?
There are a range of reasons why the OSA is so flawed.
Firstly, it is poorly drafted legislation. If we want to stop young people viewing harmful material online, it would be pertinent to actually pass legislation that does this. Instead, every computer literate person is downloading a Virtual Private Network (VPN) and using that to continue with the same activity they were before the act came into effect.
Sarah Champion, an influential Labour backbencher has responded by suggesting that they would ban VPNs. For context, a VPN allows a person to appear as though they are in a different location when posting. They are a vital tool for political dissidents in countries where human rights are seen as an optional extra. They are also a commonly used IT tool for people working remotely.
The evidence could not be clearer. For the former human rights lawyer Sir Keir Starmer to be considering banning VPNs shows that it is evident that he views the right to privacy and protest as optional extras.
The legislation targets people’s privacy. Article 8 of the ECHR is clear that there is a right to privacy. By requiring age verification to access certain websites, the legislation forces people to put their names next to their search history on the internet.
To hit home how bad this is, imagine you are a young LGBT+ person who lives at home with deeply religious parents and you have accessed a forum to seek support from your peers. Then there is a data breach and your sexual orientation is leaked to the world. This legislation could lead to the forced outing of thousands of people.
It targets the legitimate exchange of information in a democratic society. We are proud that the UK strongly protects the right to free exchange of information. It is the cornerstone of a democracy because it allows us to challenge those who we disagree with using facts and information. Yet, the OSA threatens access to Wikipedia, of all websites.
Liberal Reform is therefore calling on our party to:
-Vocally oppose the rollout of this legislation and campaign for its repeal and call for its suspension whilst a comprehensive review is undertaken.
-Work to safeguard the legality of VPNs.
-Hold the previous Conservative and current Labour Governments accountable for this gross violation of our civil liberties.
As the party of civil liberties, this should be common sense and something we are leading on by instinct. Let’s be proud of our history and stand up against this legislation.
* This is a joint article from the Board of Liberal Reform
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Indecision costing the taxpayers millions
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Jana
theakes
Tristan Ward
40 Comments
I’m glad to see you’re speaking out against this draconian legislation, and this is from a party I voted for in the last general election! I already signed the petition on the Parliament website, and encouraged a few friends online to do so as well! It’s good to know there are segments of the political establishment who actually REMEMBER their duty is to the people!
Everyone needs to hear this.
Every party should be agreeing on this – to abolish this Act and to avert anything like it.
While I am not entirely aligned to this party, I agree that the authorities must account for this transgression of our rights and privacy, and that a law must be created to prevent this from happening to this degree in the future, as variants of this Act in the past have been presented and dismissed.
I want to see the new parties – Reform and the yet-to-be-named ‘Your Party’ – work with you, and vice-versa, to ensure that this Act and anything like it, doesn’t get another chance.
Right now, I live in fear, because all forms of media are being targeted by this monstrous Act. I cannot stop worrying. Of what could be done next with this Act.
Already a petition to repeal this Act has failed despite it hitting 360k signatures.
I’m scared for how long it will take not only our government, but any government trying to pass anything like this Act, to recognise that this is an attack on the people.
I iterate again, I want to see as many parties as possible unify under the mission of abolishing censorship like this, as soon as possible. I don’t know how much more I can stomach seeing everything I know and love be blocked and withheld in the way it is.
Please.
Save us.
that was from over 3 years ago. as seen here, it says monday 5th 2022. the fact it was 6 months and nothing could be done means it didn’t come into affect and it won’t be enforced. news articles are saying things about it but they haven’t referenced it was 3 years ago:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-12-05/debates/E155684B-DEB0-43B4-BC76-BF53FEE8086A/OnlineSafetyBill#contribution-B8A2D85B-22D9-4F22-97F6-216B8888AD4E
This is such an apalling act. Having vulnerable people send their ID to be processed in America, multiple times, instead of just doing it once, which will be leaked? Not being able to host a small blog with a comment section or a website anymore without going through time consuming regulatory checks, meaning many shut down? Not being able to see news from Gaza? Young people not being able to access sexual health support / drug addiction support sites? The “potentially harmful” part of the law which could literally mean anything? Expensive age gating that doesnt protect anyone that was bypassed in 2 seconds with a picture of a videogame character? Wikipedia potentially being banned?
The lib dems should be opposing this insane overreach.
Well said. A free society would not have this law. What is next for censorship? Banning fictional works that insult anyone?
This Act is an abomination. It is an odious and obtuse bit of legislation that seeks to deprive freedom of speech and expression from the people of the UK while masquerading under the cover of ‘safety’.
But if you trade freedom for safety, you will get neither. Nor do you deserve either.
At every single level, this Act is vague on the definitions but harsh on the enforcement. It was put into place colouring anything the this duplicitous demagouge of a government might not like with the same brush with no consolidated plan for minimising the issues it presents.
It, likely by design, makes it so that digital services and sites in the UK require paid for verification systems in the tech sector, turning content access into a protection racket for big tech. It is also a massive security risk given these systems can and will be breached and their contents shared out for blackmail reasons.
This apparatus does nothing for children beyond cutting them off from educational materials. It flags news, discussion and discourse against partisan talking points as ‘adult’, suppressing and censoring access to the truth of what is going on around the world in the vein hope that it will cut down on anti-government sentiment.
The Act. Must. Go.
And the ones responsible must be held accountable.
You reap what you sow…
“Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party before us to stand up for civil liberties, recognising that the role of the state is not to micromanage or infringe on people’s core rights”
Far too many on the left fail to condemn cancel culture, and have ostracized those with gender critical beliefs backed up by law …
“If we want to stop young people viewing harmful material online, it would be pertinent to actually pass legislation that does this.”
Indeed. So what do you think such legislation should say and how would you propose enforcing such legislation?
@ Craig Levene
I could never imagine seeing a statement, pointing out how vulnerable LGBT+ people are being affected by how the Online Safety Act is being enforced on access to queer spaces and the risk now posed because of these requirements on small and large forums alike, and that you decide to make your comment about “ostracisation” of gender critical beliefs. For once read the room!
It’s a rare day I’ll agree with Nigel Farage on anything but when the only thing Labour’s technology minister can do to cover up the technical & economic incompetence behind this bill is yell “Jimmy Saville, Jimmy Saville”, and have the public see right through them, it’s high time they are stood up to. By all means leglistlate to stuff all devices sold in the UK with default ‘on’ parental control software/bloatware to give the parents the tools here (endpoint protection works!). But loading the public with ID fraud risk, companies with costs & threatening digital innovaters with extraordinarily high fines should something sneak in and around their best efforts is not setting the UK up well for an e-commerce boom.
Brandon;
When your espousing to be the party of civil liberties – you lose the luxury in which ones you like or dislike. As we’ve seen in recent court cases – its universities and progressive left political parties that have failed the basics at the first hurdle.
Jason L;
That’s how it should have been done. If you actually want children to be protected online, make it illegal for a child to use an internet capable device that doesn’t have parental controls in use. Don’t restrict the entire internet itself and punish the rest of us. The focus should always have been on parental responsibility.
Here’s a list of some of the smaller communities already caught by this Act. https://onlinesafetyact.co.uk/in_memoriam/
It is morally correct and political advantageous to oppose this legislation.
We shouldn’t be defending LabCon failures.
As a Cyber Security professional, whilst I generally agree with what the bill sets out to achieve, the way in which it has been implemented -requiring sensitive identity documents- is going to lead to identity theft or worse. Specifically, there is no requirement for providers to meet any specific privacy or security standards, the bill instead seems to rely on data protection alone, which speaking with experience is sorely insufficient. Imagine the next time an app gets hacked – instead of just email addresses, hostile actors could walk away with your passport details, driver’s license, and even close-up facial scans. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience; it’s a goldmine for criminals, enabling a terrifying range of malicious activities. I’m particularly concerned about how easily this data could be used to produce deepfakes, which can then be used in a variety of ways to impersonate an individual.
I also have concerns about the age verification providers these websites/applications will use – companies don’t have to choose trusted or certified providers that meet specific privacy or security standards. So far, services such as Reddit & Bluesky have chosen age verification providers based outside of the UK with concerning privacy policies.
I wonder if any of the men (and I think they are all men) who have written or responded on this post would care to give some thought to the impact that online harms does to women and girls.
Anne, I certainly am very alive to the dangers posed to women and girls online. I am in the middle of Laura Bates book The new age of sexism: how the AI revolution is inventing misogyny. In it she describes how easy it is for people to grab an image of a young woman and use AI to turn it into a pornographic image which, of course, she will get blamed for.
Sites who publish this kind of content need to face consequences.
But I’m not sure that the Online Safety Act sorts that problem and I am particularly concerned about and the need for vulnerable people, including women seeking help to get away from domestic abusers, to be able to access online advice and information in private.
Since no one seems to have added this yet, it is worth remembering that bad actors with access to our data may be foreign governments, including the US, who may utilise anti-terror legislation to access ANY data held by US-based firms, including data held outside the US. Given their recent activities, do we want that? This is literally a national security threat, it goes way beyond what is listed here (although these are all incredibly valid and important too).
@Anne Williams
“I wonder if any of the men (and I think they are all men)”
No they aren’t
God I hate agreeing with Liberal Reform, but in this case they’re absolutely right.
The Online Safety Act is a classic case of
“Something must be done!”
“This is something”
“OK let’s do that!”
Yes, there is a real problem – several real problems – with online abuse and radicalisation. None of which will be solved by this legislation. This will be this generation’s Dangerous Dogs Act.
Sadly the leaders office / parliamentary party don’t seem that keen on us being the party of civil liberties. Look at the whip to abstain on the ludicrous decision to classify Palestinian Action as a terrorist group – something that 6 Lib Dem MPs actually broke the whip on to support. At least 6 also broke the whip to oppose that misapplication of the Terrorism Act 2000. This ban is exactly the kind of thing that Liberal Democrat MPs warned against.
Well done to Liberal Reform for standing up for our right to privacy online.
David,
No Lib Dem mp voted against proscribing Palestine Action, the 6 MPs you mentioned registered a formal abstention by voting in both lobbies.
It’s also worth noting that we didn’t vote against proscribing Palestine Action because the vote lumped them in with two neo nazi groups. Voting against would have mean voting to allow their continuance
The Act is now silencing a Lib Dem Youth branch https://x.com/uoblibdems/status/1950604161310929331?s=46
Nonconformistradical;
The Open Rights Group put out an in depth proprosal for a rights-first approach to fix the Act.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/publications/how-to-fix-the-online-safety-act-a-rights-first-approach/
@Craig Levene: The onus is on you to explain how any of this culture-war stuff has anything to do with what position the Liberal Democrats should take on the Online Safety Act, if you insist on posting your usual diatribe under this article. No the “progressive left”, not “universities” but specifically the Liberal Democrats, and specifically on the OSA..
I’m not a citizen nor resident of UK but I felt compelled to speak out.
Make no mistake, I’m normally a fan of increased regulations on the Big Tech because they’ve been enshittifying by a lot lately, but age verification laws like KOSA and the Online Safety Act are solutions in search of a problem. Not only they will not tackle enshittification, but instead they might actually intensify it, aside from other unintended consequences like aiding corrupt companies and so on to snuff out efforts by whistleblowers and others to expose corporate wrongdoing and so on.
It’s better if politicians can put their efforts in crafting legislations pertaining to thanatosensitivity and digital legacies instead. Large scale social media platforms and perhaps email services should have functions where people can choose whether to have their accounts archived in perpetuity, deleted or even transferred to designated persons like family members if they die. After all, in the age of deepfakes, misinformation is just as likely to result from the absence of data as the presence of it.
@Anne Williams Regarding “the impact that online harms does to women and girls” — how will the implementation of this act help? So far it has resulted in a requirement to send photos of ID or myself to a verification service before accessing “adult” content. Both are potential routes for identity theft and tracking that did not exist before.
For years we have been warned to guard our personal information online, and that some countries, notably the US, have less stringent security practices than the UK. So to now be required to submit photos of my ID to US-based services with little more than a pinky-swear to protect my data flies in the face of security practices.
Finally, as a woman I resent the subtle implication that I am less capable of identifying or avoiding harmful content. I’m sure you meant that women and girls are more often targets than men and boys, and the act was intended to address this, but the age verification is acting counter to this aim.
So far age verification methods reduce anonymity online and open potential avenues to identify and track people and the content they access. This could be embarrassing but legal pornography; but it could also be advice on escaping domestic abuse. There is a potential for great harm for anyone, but particularly women and girls, if we lose our ability to be anonymous online.
Firstly I was under the impression that this party was an integral part of the consultancy regarding this act..
I have read umpteen articles both pro and con its implementation.. However, its most vociferous opponents are Farage/ Reform and Musk/’x”.. My gut feeling is that , if they are so against it, it must be doing something right..
Finally, almost everyone on here seems to be opposed to it… So, considering that there is a desperate need to protect children, especially young girls, from ‘grooming’, ‘extreme content,, etc. What are YOUR practical answers to the problem?
Or is it simply a case of “the perfect being the enemy of the good”?
I need some clarification from the article.
The article claims is a rather vague way that your search history which may include visiting a LGBT forum will now become more available and you may get outed you to the general public including your homophobic parents.
No doubt we can come back to this concern in a years time and find out if this has happened now that the bill has passed.
In the meantime I am not clear from what we know now why the On-Line Safety Bill makes this more likely.
An LGBT forum presumably does not need age verification and if you are under 18 years old it is not worth applying for age verification if the first place.
How did the LIb Dems actually vote on this in Parliament though?
This is what I found on Hansard which shows only 11 divisions in the commons (ignoring committee votes for simplicity) and none of them seem to be 2nd/3rd reading votes but all on amendments.
So what actually is the party’s stance – rather than what people would like it to be (on which I would agree with the sentiments of the article).
@expat
In regards to both Musk and Farage, I’ll give you this quote:
“Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day.”
I personally do not like any of them- I’d even argue I despise them on a personal level (DOGE and Brexit being the two greatest offenses.)
But they are genuinely correct that this law is disastrous and causes more harm than good. There will be soaring amount of cases of identity theft in the nearby future. You may think that’s not all that big of a deal, but if you heard of all the horror stories victims have gone through, you’d definitely think otherwise. (ransom, theft, blackmail, etc.)
Seeing as how no one is giving any sort of solutions- How about this:
What if there’s a program for parents to get educated on how they can protect their children? It’s a mandatory course they have to attend to get the right amount of digital literacy and knowledge on how to manage parental protections on their devices.
I’d like to call it: The Parental Education Act (PEA)
I haven’t fully fleshed out my proposition on this, but I honestly think this is by far the most effective method on countering this issue. Not everyone is tech savvy or know where to start on managing their devices, so how about we educate them in the first place?
It’s far better to have the government provide resources and tools that can make parenting easier rather than this pathetic solution we have right now.
Politically I’m nowhere near the lim-dems here but I’m with you on this. I am now shut out of the discussion pages of two harmless hobby forums (eg one is about motoring) because the webmasters wanted to see your credit card to let you carry on. They said they just want to be on the safe side. I’ve heard of other small sites (eg on ferret keeping, which gave advice on breeding them) shutting down entirely because they did not want the job or cost of age verification.
Wikipedia, the greatest source of information on Earth, has been told they need to implement verification. Other large sites are putting verification out to contractors that have mushroomed up for the work, quite possibly based in India or Russia. I refuse to show my credit card, face, or any other personal details to these spivs.
Meanwhile it is still easy to find p0rn, even without a VPN – I’ve just tried it. The UK ISPs would need to block all international traffic to stop that and I guess the really harmful stuff too.
@ Ron Merkle
You said you were normally a fan of increased regulations on the Big Techs as if this was an increasing regulation on them. Actually they will love the OSA because it forces their users to give them even more personal information, and even credit cards. Collecting personal info is the lifeblood of those big techs. In practice it is increasing regulation on us users, not on big tech.
@ Geoffrey Payne
I’m not sure the article’s LGBT scenario was a very good example. However the issue is that for age verification you will need to give personal details to the website (or its contactor) and this could then leak out, be hacked, or be shamelessly sold. Some of those contractors are likely to be abroad and could be very shady even if the website is not. Thee will be massive personal data thefts and releases resulting from the OSA.
@ Thomas
As for parent’s education, many could not care less, and many others do not have time to stand looking over their children’s shoulders – even if that were good for the children. Many older kids will soon hack through software safeguards.
@ Thomas
Your point around parental education – many will also say that something of that nature will encroach on civil liberties.
Liberalism has always been a balancing act – the rights of one vs another, and the possible harms to any and all balanced against those rights. Who is more vulnerable and in need of protection? An adult who can download a VPN or make a conscious choice to upload their identity documentation, or an 11 year old child roaming the internet and stumbling upon pornography?
Not every barrier is illiberal.
Sad fact is parents don’t effectively moderate their children’s online activities – if at all. They want to but just can’t do it effectively. I see this every day as a primary school teacher. Families need help and the children are crying out for it. When we provide children with smart phones, we’ve given them the keys to access every top shelf in every dodgy store. It’s bizarre that we’re wetting our pants about doing anything to make their capacity to access a bit harder. Schools amongst other services are still there to sign-post, support and educate children with all manner of difficulties and distresses after all.
Excellent comment by Ali Howarth. I note Lord Tim Clement Jones has now penned an article to give more detail about the Act. His points about how exposure to violent online porn (usually boys from a young age) is changing society to the detriment of women is well made. Also the framing of this as a public health issue is highly pertinent.
@Geoffrey
In theory. But the broad scope of the age verification requirement means that many platforms are taking the path of least risk by age-gating anything that they think might get caught up in the legal framework, perhaps using AI without proper human intervention to decide what to lock up behind the age-wall. Or they are simply denying access to users who appear to be accessing from the UK to avoid having to implement age verification
@Geoffrey’s comment encapsulates the myopic view of many OSA supporters, the assumption that the law will work exactly as intended and there are no unintended consequences; or even that the unintended consequences aren’t a problem of the law and we should just put up with them for the sake of “the children”. Well that is no way to make good law. Unintended consequences matter, and need to be taken into consideration.
@Ali Howarth: An adult who “make[s] a conscious choice to upload their identity documentation” might be putting themself in a vulnerable position, depending on the verification service that the website is using (over which the user has no choice). The VPN option is safer.
@Lucky Lucan I’m indeed for increased regulation of Big Tech companies because a lot of enshittification instances tend to came of underregulation of the sector, such as how Roblox has been mishandling #SchlepGate so far, but you do have some point; ultimately we’d need to strive for a Goldilocks zone instead of extremes.
To reiterate my earlier point, it’s better if politicians can put their efforts in crafting legislations pertaining to thanatosensitivity and digital legacies instead. Large scale social media platforms and perhaps email services should have functions where people can choose whether to have their accounts archived in perpetuity, deleted or even transferred to designated persons like family members if they die. After all, in the age of deepfakes, misinformation is just as likely to result from the absence of data as the presence of it.
In the case of Roblox and #SchlepGate I can think of a requirement to mandate or ensures interoperability between major virtual gameworld platforms so that users can easily vote with feet if any other big virtual gameworld platforms like Fortnite, Roblox, VRChat ever had another scandal(s) similar to Roblox’s #Schlepgate.