The Government has been very secretive about its progress towards the starting of internet censorship for porn in the UK. Meanwhile the appointed internet porn censor, the BBFC, has withdrawn into its shell to hide from the flak. It has uttered hardly a
helpful word on the subject in the last six months, just at a time when newspapers have been printing uniformed news items based on old guesstimates of when the scheme will start.
The last target date was specified months ago when DCMS minister Margot
James suggested that it was intended to get the scheme going around Easter of 2019. This date was not achieved but the newspapers seem to have jumped to the conclusion that the scheme would start on 1st April 2019. The only official response to this
false news is that the DCMS will now be announcing the start date shortly.
So what has been going on?
Well it seems that maybe the government realised that asking porn websites and age verification services to demand that porn users
identify themselves without any real legal protection on how that data can be used is perhaps not the wisest thing to do. Jim Killock of Open Rights Group explains that the delays are due to serious concerns about privacy and data collection:
When they consulted about the shape of age verification last summer they were surprised to find that nearly everyone who wrote back to them in that consultation said this was a privacy disaster and they need to make sure
people's data doesn't get leaked out.
Because if it does it could be that people are outed, have their relationships break down, their careers could be damaged, even for looking at legal material.
delays have been very much to do with the fact that privacy has been considered at the last minute and they're having to try to find some way to make these services a bit safer. It's introduced a policy to certify some of the products as better for
privacy (than others) but it's not compulsory and anybody who chooses one of those products might find they (the companies behind the sites) opt out of the privacy scheme at some point in the future.
And there are huge commercial
pressures to do this because as we know with Facebook and Google user data is extremely valuable, it tells you lots about what somebody likes or dislikes or might want or not want.
So those commercial pressures will kick in and
they'll try to start to monetise that data and all of that data if it leaked out would be very damaging to people so it should simply never be collected.
So the government has been working on a voluntary kite mark scheme to approve
age verifiers that can demonstrate to an auditor they will keep user data safe. This scheme seems to be in its early stages as the audit policy was first outlines to age verifiers on 13th March 2019. AvSecure reported on Twitter:
Friday saw several AV companies meet with the BBFC & the accreditation firm, who presented the framework & details of the proposed scheme.
Whilst the scheme itself seems very deep & comprehensive,
there were several questions asked that we are all awaiting answers on.
The Register reports that AgeID has already commissioned a data security audit using the information security company, the NCC Group. Perhaps that company can
therefore be rapidly approved by the official auditor, whose identity seems to being kept secret.
So the implementation schedule must presumably be that the age verifiers get audited over the next couple of months and then after that the
government can give websites the official 3 months notice required to give websites time to implement the now accredited age verification schemes.
The commencement date will perhaps be about 5 or 6 months from now.
The European Parliament has backed disgraceful copyright laws which will change the nature of the net.
The new rules include holding technology companies responsible for material posted without proper copyright permission. This will destroy the
livelihoods of European people making their living from generating content.
The Copyright Directive was backed by 348 MEPs, with 278 against.
It is now up to member states to approve the decision. If they do, they will have two years to
implement it once it is officially published.
The two clauses causing the most controversy are known as Article 11 and Article 13.
Article 11 states that websites will either have to pay to use links from news websites or else be banned
from linking to or quoting news services.
Article 13 holds larger technology companies responsible for material posted without a copyright licence.
It means they would need to pre-censor content before it is uploaded. Only the biggest US
internet companies will have the technology to achieve this automatically, even then technical difficulties in recognising content will results in inevitable over censorship from having to err on the side f caution.
The campaign group Open
Knowledge International described it as a massive blow for the internet.
We now risk the creation of a more closed society at the very time we should be using digital advances to build a more open world where knowledge
creates power for the many, not the few, said chief executive Catherine Stihler. Skip Twitter post by @Senficon
Dark day for internet freedom: The @Europarl_EN has rubber-stamped copyright reform including #Article13 and
#Article11. MEPs refused to even consider amendments. The results of the final vote: 348 in favor, 274 against #SaveYourInternet pic.twitter.com/8bHaPEEUk3 204 Julia Reda (@Senficon) March 26, 2019.
Europe's efforts to curb the internet giants only make them stronger
Russia's media censor Roskomnadzor has threatened to block access to popular VPN-services which allow users to gain access to websites which have been banned by Moscow.
Russia has introduced internet censorship laws, requiring search engines to
delete some results, messaging services to share encryption keys with security services and social networks to store users' personal data on servers within the country.
But VPN services can allow users to establish secure internet connections and
reach websites which have been banned or blocked. Russia's communications regulator Roskomnadzor said it had asked the owners of 10 VPN services to implement the country's registry of banned websites and block access to the specified sites.
internet censor said that it had sent notifications to NordVPN, Hide My Ass!, Hola VPN, Openvpn, VyprVPN, ExpressVPN, TorGuard, IPVanish, Kaspersky Secure Connection and VPN Unlimited, giving them a month to reply.
In the cases of non-compliance
with the obligations stipulated by the law, Roskomnadzor has threatened to block the offending VPNs.
Meanwhile a new censorship bill has been introduced to the Russian parliament (Duma) that established the concept of a Russian internet called Runet that can operate independently of the worldwide internet.
Runet is envisaged as a Russian space
that allows state censors to block Russian internet users from access to foreign websites whilst allowing them to continue using local websites approved by the internet censor. It also provides for continued internet access in Russia space should the
rest of the world cut off Russia.
Russia notes the overwhelming majority of the key services running the worldwide internet are under US control. Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev said: That's not very good actually.
The legislation was
initially drafted in response to a new US cyber strategy that accuses Russia, along with China, Iran, and North Korea, of using the web to undermine its democracy and economy.
New Zealand's largest ISPs are continuing to block websites which hosted videos of the Christchurch terror attack, after a last-minute request by the Government.
In the wake of the mosque shootings, a number of New Zealand's biggest ISPs took
what they themselves acknowledged was an unprecedented step - blocking websites which were hosting a live streamed video of the recent mosque attack.In an open letter explaining the move and calling for action from larger tech companies, the chief
executives of Spark, Vodafone and 2degrees said the decision was the right one in such extreme and tragic circumstances.
On Tuesday evening, both Spark and Vodafone told Newsroom they would start to remove the remaining website blocks overnight. A
Spark spokeswoman said:
We believe we have now reached the point where we need to cease our extreme temporary measures to block these websites and revert to usual operating procedures.
than two hours after its initial response, Spark said the websites would continue to be blocked for several more days following specific requests from Government.
The BBFC has made a pretty poor show of setting out guidelines for the technical implementation of age verification, and now the Stop Age Verification campaign has pointed out that the BBFC has made legal errors about text porn
The BBFC seems a little behind the curve in its role as porn censor. Its initial draft of its guidelines gave absolutely no concern for the safety and well being of porn users. The BBFC spoke of incredibly sensitive identity and browsing date being
entrusted to adult websites and age verifiers, purely on the forlorn hope that these companies would follow 'best practice' voluntary guidelines to keep the data safe. The BBFC offered next to no guidelines that defined how age verification should work
and what it really needs to do.
As time has moved on, it has obviously occurred to the BBFC or the government that this was simply not good enough, so we are now waiting on the implementation of some sort of kite marking scheme to try to provide at
least a modicum of trust in age verifiers to keep this sensitive data safe.
But even in this period of rework, the BBFC hasn't been keeping interested parties informed of what's going on. The BBFC seem very reluctant to advise or inform anyone of
anything. Perhaps the rework is being driven by the government and maybe the BBFC isn't in a position to be any more helpful.
Anyway it is interesting to note that in an
article from stopageverification.org.uk , that the BBFC has been reported to being overstepping the remit of the age verification laws
contained in the Digital Economy Act:
All types of pornographic content are within the scope of the legislation. The legislation does not exclude audio or text from its definition of pornography. All providers of commercial online pornography to persons in the UK are
required to comply with the age-verification requirement.
Pornographic material is defined in s.15 of the act. This sets out nine categories of material. Material is defined in that section (15(2) as material means204 (a) a series of visual images shown as a moving picture, with
or without sound; (b) a still image or series of still images, with or without sound; or (c) sound;
It clearly doesn't mention text.
The BBFC need to be clear in their role as Age Verifier.
They can only apply the law as enacted by Parliament. If they seek to go beyond that they could be at risk of court action.
The Observer today published an article generally supporting the upcoming porn censorship and age verification regime. It did have one interesting point to note though:
Brexit's impact on the pornography industry has gone
unnoticed. But the chaos caused by the UK's disorderly exit from the European Union even stretches into the grubbier parts of cyberspace.
A new law forcing pornography users to prove that they are adults was supposed to be
introduced early next month. But sources told the Observer that it may not be unveiled until after the Brexit impasse is resolved as the government, desperate for other things to talk about, believes it will be a good news story that will play well with
the public when it is eventually unveiled.
Comment: The illiberal Observer
25th March 2019. Thanks to Alan
Bloody hell! Have you seen this fuckwittage from the purportedly liberal Observer?
Posh-boy churnalist Jamie (definitely not Jim) Doward regurgitates the bile of authoritarian feminist Gail Dines about the crackpot attempt to stop children accessing a bit of porn. This is total bollox.
getting on for sixty years since I spotted that my girl contemporaries were taking on a different and interesting shape - a phenomenon I researched by reference to two bodies of literature: those helpful little books for the amateur and professional
photographer in which each photo of a lady was accompanied by F number and exposure time and those periodicals devoted to naturism. This involved no greater subterfuge than taking off my school cap and turning up my raincoat collar to hide my school tie.
I would fervently hope that today's lads can run rings round parental controls and similar nonsense.
President Vladimir Putin has tightened his grip on the Russian Internet by signing two censorship bills into law. One bans fake news while the other makes it illegal to insult public officials.
Russia has never really been a liberal democracy. It
lacks an independent judiciary, and the government has found a variety of techniques to harass and intimidate independent media in the country.
But the new legislation gives the Russian government more direct tools to censor online speech. Under
one bill, individuals can face fines and jail time if they publish material online that shows a clear disrespect for society, the state, the official state symbols of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and bodies
exercising state power. Punishments can be as high as 300,000 rubles ($4,700) and 15 days in jail.
A second bill subjects sites publishing unreliable socially significant information to fines as high as 1.5 million rubles ($23,000).
The ICO has commissioned research into consumers' attitudes towards and awareness of personal data used in online advertising.
This research was commissioned by the Information Commissioner's Office. Ofcom provided advice on
the research design and analysis. The objective of this research was to understand the public's awareness and perceptions of how online advertising is served to the public based on their personal data, choices and behaviour.
Advertising technology -- known as adtech -- refers to the different types of analytics and digital tools used to direct online advertising to individual people and audiences. It relies on collecting information about how individuals use the internet, such as search and browsing histories, and personal information, such as gender and year of birth, to decide which specific adverts are presented to a particular person. Websites also use adtech to sell advertising space in real-time.
The research finds that more than half (54%) of participants would rather see relevant online adverts. But while 63% of people initially thought it acceptable for websites to display adverts, in return for the website being free
to access, this fell to 36% once it was explained how personal data might be used to target adverts.
ISPs in Australia have blocked access to dozens of websites, including 4chan and 8chan, in the name of blocking the video of last week's New Zealand mass shooting.
In Australia, ISP Vodafone said that blocking requests generally come from courts
or law enforcement agencies but that this time ISPs acted on their own. Telstra and Optus also blocked the sites in Australia. Besides 4chan and 8chan, ISP-level blocking affected the social network Voat, the blog Zerohedge, video hosting site LiveLeak,
and others. The ban on 4chan was lifted a few hours later.
Raising issues of wider censorship, LiveLeak removed the offending videos but was not immediately removed from the list of censored sites.
The ISPs' decision to block access to
websites was controversial as they acted to censor content without instruction from either the Australian Communications and Media Authority or the eSafety Commissioner, and most smaller service providers have decided to keep access open.
are facing some government pressure, though. Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Telstra, Optus, and Vodafone to a meeting to discuss ways to prevent distribution and livestreaming of violent videos.
New Zealand ISPs took a similar
approach. The country's main iSPs, Spark, Vodafone, Vocus and 2degrees, are blocking any website which has footage of the Friday 15 March Christchurch mosque shootings. The ISPs agreed to work together to identify and block access at [the] DNS level to
such online locations, such as 4chan and 8chan.
New Zealand Telecommunications Forum Chief Executive Geoff Thorn said the industry is working together to ensure this harmful content can't be viewed by New Zealanders. He acknowledged that there is
the risk that some sites that have legitimate content could have been mistakenly blacklisted, but this will be rectified as soon as possible. .
Australia and New Zealand also do not have net neutrality rules that prevent ISPs from blocking
websites on their own volition
South Africa's National Assembly has officially passed the Films and Publications Amendment Bill, with the bill now scheduled to be sent to President Cyril Ramaphosa for assent.
The bill extends film censorship to online content and appoints The Film
and Publications Board (FPB), the country's film censors, as arbiters of internet censorship of hate speech, revenge porn and website blocking.
Some of the other notable changes include:
Revenge porn: Under the bill, any person who knowingly distributes private sexual photographs and films without prior consent and with intention to cause the said individual harm shall be guilty of an offence and liable upon conviction.
Hate speech: The bill states that any person who knowingly distributes in any medium, including the internet and social media any film, game or publication which amounts to propaganda for war, incites imminent violence, or advocates hate
speech, shall be guilty of an offence.
Website blocking: If an internet access provider has knowledge that its services are being used for the hosting or distribution of child pornography, propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence or advocating hatred based on an
identifiable group characteristic it shall immediately remove this content, or be subject to a fine.
According to Dominic Cull of specialised legal advice firm, Ellipsis, the bill which is on its way to president Cyril Ramaphosa is extremely badly written. He notes that the introduction bill means that there is definite potential for abuse in terms
of infringement of free speech .
One of my big objections here is that if I upload something which someone else finds objectionable, and they think it hate speech, they will be able to complain to the FPB.
If the FPB thinks the complaint is valid, they can then lodge a takedown notice to have this material removed.
These sentiments were echoed by legal expert Nick Hall of MakeGamesSA, who said:
The big question around the bill has always been enforceability and the likelihood of the FPB to do anything with it. Practically, are they going to go after small-scale YouTubers? No, probably not, as they don't have the means to do
Instead, my concern has always been that the legislation becomes a tool for them to use censorship.
Websites and businesses across Europe went dark yesterday in protest of disgraceful changes to copyright law being introduced by the European Union.
Ahead of a final vote on the legislation next Tuesday, March 26th, a number of European Wikipedia
sites are going dark for the day, blocking all access and directing users to contact their local EU representative to protest the laws. Other major sites, such as Twitch and PornHub, are showing protest banners on their homepages and social media.
Meanwhile, any users uploading content to Reddit will be shown this notice: Critics of the Copyright Directive say it could lead to messages like this.
The law in question is the EU Copyright Directive, a long-awaited update to copyright law. Two
provisions have been singled out by critics as dangerous to European people's freedom and livehoods.
These are Article 11, which lets publishers charge platforms if they link to their stories (the link tax'), and Article 13, which makes platforms
legally responsible for users uploading copyrighted material (the so-called 'upload filter').
Article 13 is particularly dangerous, say critics. It will make all platforms hosting user-generated content legally responsible for users uploading
copyrighted content. The only way to stop these uploads, say critics, will be to scan content before its uploaded, leading to the creation of filters that will err on the side of censorship and will be abused by copyright trolls.
the rules would be a "net loss for free knowledge." Volunteer editors for the German, Czech, Danish, and Slovak Wikipedias have all blacked out their sites for the day.
As well as the website blackouts , more than five million internet
users have signed a petition protesting Article 13 . Marches and demonstrations are also planned in European cities across the weekend and on Monday and Tuesday before the final vote.
Our efforts to defeat
#Article13 just got a huge boost! Polish @Platforma_org will vote AGAINST the #copyright directive unless #Article13 is deleted! They're the second largest single political party in EPP after @CDU. Thanks @MichalBoni
At a press conference in Berlin, @AxelVossMdEP
confirmed rumours that some press publishers have threatened parliamentarians with bad election coverage if they vote against the #copyright reform. Voss does not consider this problematic. #Article11 #Article13 #SaveYourInternet
Pornhub posted a banner at the top of the European version of its site on Thursday, as seen in the image at the top of this page. The discussion forum Reddit204the self-described front page of the internet204and the sprawling online encyclopedia Wikipedia also protested the planned new law, according to a Business Insider report .
An informal group of MPs, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Media and Young People's Mental Health and Wellbeing has published a report calling for the establishment of an internet censor. The report clams:
80% of the UK public believe tighter regulation is needed to address the impact of social media on the health and wellbeing of young people.
63% of young people reported social media to be a good source of health information.
However, children who spend more than three hours a day using social media are twice as likely to display symptoms of mental ill health.
Pressure to conform to beauty standards perpetuated and praised online can encourage harmful behaviours to achieve "results", including body shame and disordered eating, with 46% of girls compared to 38% of all young people reporting
social media has a negative impacted on their self-esteem.
Establish a duty of care on all social media companies with registered UK users aged 24 and under in the form of a statutory code of conduct, with Ofcom to act as regulator.
Create a Social Media Health Alliance, funded by a 0.5% levy on the
profits of social media companies, to fund research, educational initiatives and establish clearer guidance for the public.
Review whether the "addictive" nature of social media is sufficient for official disease classification.
Urgently commission robust, longitudinal research, into understanding the extent to which the impact of social media on young people's mental health and wellbeing is one of cause or correlation.
Chris Elmore MP, Chair of the APPG on Social Media on Young People's Mental Health and Wellbeing said:
"I truly think our report is the wakeup call needed to ensure - finally - that meaningful action is taken
to lessen the negative impact social media is having on young people's mental health.
For far too long social media companies have been allowed to operate in an online Wild West. And it is in this lawless landscape that our
children currently work and play online. This cannot continue. As the report makes clear, now is the time for the government to take action.
The recommendations from our Inquiry are both sensible and reasonable; they would make a
huge difference to the current mental health crisis among our young people.
I hope to work constructively with the UK Government in the coming weeks and months to ensure we see real changes to tackle the issues highlighted in the
report at the earliest opportunity."
The BBFC has launched an innovative new industry collaboration with Netflix to move towards classifying all content on the service using BBFC age ratings.
Netflix will produce BBFC age ratings for content using a manual
tagging system along with an automated rating algorithm, with the BBFC taking up an auditing role. Netflix and the BBFC will work together to make sure Netflix's classification process produces ratings which are consistent with the BBFC's Classification
Guidelines for the UK.
It comes as new research by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and the Video Standards Council Rating Board (VSC) has revealed that almost 80% of parents are concerned about children seeing
inappropriate content on video on demand or online games platforms.
The BBFC and the VSC have joined forces to respond to calls from parents and are publishing a joint set of Best Practice Guidelines to help online services
deliver what UK consumers want.
The Best Practice Guidelines will help online platforms work towards greater and more consistent use of trusted age ratings online. The move is supported by the Department for Digital, Culture,
Media and Sport as part of the Government's strategy to make the UK the safest place to be online.
This includes recommending the use of consistent and more comprehensive use of BBFC age labelling symbols across all Video On
Demand (VOD) services, and PEGI symbols across online games services, including additional ratings info and mapping parental controls to BBFC age ratings and PEGI ratings.
The voluntary Guidelines are aimed at VOD services
offering video content to UK consumers via subscription, purchase and rental, but exclude pure catch-up TV services like iPlayer, ITV Hub, All4, My 5 and UKTV Player.
The research also shows that 90% of parents believe that it is
important to display age ratings when downloading or streaming a film online, and 92% of parents think it's important for video on demand platforms to show the same type of age ratings they would expect at the cinema or on DVD and Blu-ray 203 confirmed
by 94% of parents saying it's important to have consistent ratings across all video on demand platforms, rather than a variety of bespoke ratings systems.
With nine in 10 (94%) parents believing it is important to have consistent
ratings across all online game platforms rather than a variety of bespoke systems, the VSC is encouraging services to join the likes of Microsoft, Sony PlayStation, Nintendo and Google in providing consumers with the nationally recognised PEGI ratings on
games - bringing consistency between the offline and online worlds.
The Video Recordings Act requires that the majority of video works and video games released on physical media must be classified by the BBFC or the VSC prior to
release. While there is no equivalent legal requirement that online releases must be classified, the BBFC has been working with VOD services since 2008, and the VSC has been working with online games platforms since 2003. The Best Practice Guidelines aim
to build on the good work that is already happening, and both authorities are now calling for the online industry to work with them in 2019 and beyond to better protect children.
David Austin, Chief Executive of the BBFC, said:
Our research clearly shows a desire from the public to see the same trusted ratings they expect at the cinema, on DVD and on Blu-ray when they choose to watch material online. We know that it's not just parents who
want age ratings, teenagers want them too. We want to work with the industry to ensure that families are able to make the right decisions for them when watching content online.
Ian Rice, Director General of the VSC,
We have always believed that consumers wanted a clear, consistent and readily recognisable rating system for online video games and this research has certainly confirmed that view. While the vast majority of
online game providers are compliant and apply PEGI ratings to their product, it is clear that more can be done to help consumers make an informed purchasing decision. To this end, the best practice recommendations will certainly make a valuable
contribution in achieving this aim.
Digital Minister Margot James said:
Our ambition is for the UK to be the safest place to be online, which means having age ratings parents know
and trust applied to all online films and video games. I welcome the innovative collaboration announced today by Netflix and the BBFC, but more needs to be done.
It is important that more of the industry takes this
opportunity for voluntary action, and I encourage all video on demand and games platforms to adopt the new best practice standards set out by the BBFC and Video Standards Council.
The BBFC is looking at innovative ways to open up
access to its classifications to ensure that more online video content goes live with a trusted age rating. Today the BBFC and Netflix announce a year-long self-ratings pilot which will see the online streaming service move towards in-house
classification using BBFC age ratings, under licence.
Netflix will use an algorithm to apply BBFC Guideline standards to their own content, with the BBFC setting those standards and auditing ratings to ensure consistency. The goal
is to work towards 100% coverage of BBFC age ratings across the platform.
Mike Hastings, Director of Editorial Creative at Netflix, said:
The BBFC is a trusted resource in the UK for providing
classification information to parents and consumers and we are excited to expand our partnership with them. Our work with the BBFC allows us to ensure our members always press play on content that is right for them and their families.
David Austin added:
We are fully committed to helping families chose content that is right for them, and this partnership with Netflix will help us in our goal to do just that. By partnering with
the biggest streaming service, we hope that others will follow Netflix's lead and provide comprehensive, trusted, well understood age ratings and ratings info, consistent with film and DVD, on their UK platforms. The partnership shows how the industry
are working with us to find new and innovative ways to deliver 100% age ratings for families.
The new EU Copyright Directive will be up for its final vote in the week of Mar 25, and like any piece of major EU policy, it has been under discussion for many years and had all its areas of controversy resolved a year ago -- but then German MEP
Axel Voss took over as the "rapporteur" (steward) of the Directive and reintroduced the long-abandoned idea of forcing all online services to use filters to block users from posting anything that anyone, anywhere claimed was their copyrighted
There are so many obvious deficiencies with adding filters to every message-board, online community, and big platform that the idea became political death, as small- and medium-sized companies pointed out that you can't fix the
EU's internet by imposing costs that only US Big Tech firms could afford to pay, thus wiping out all European competition.
So Voss switched tactics, and purged all mention of filters from the Directive, and began to argue that he
didn't care how online services guaranteed that their users didn't infringe anyone's copyrights, even copyrights in works that had only been created a few moments before and that no one had ever seen before, ever. Voss said that it didn't matter how
billions of user posts were checked, just so long as it all got filtered.
(It's like saying, "I expect you to deliver a large, four-legged African land-mammal with a trunk, tusk and a tail, but it doesn't have to be an
elephant -- any animal that fits those criteria will do).
Now, in a refreshingly frank interview, Voss has come clean: the only way to comply with Article 13 will be for every company to install filters.
When asked whether filters will be sufficient to keep Youtube users from infringing copyright, Voss said, "If the platform's intention is to give people access to copyrighted works, then we have to think about whether that kind of business should exist." That is, if Article 13 makes it impossible to have an online platform where the public is allowed to make work available without first having to submit it to legal review, maybe there should just no longer be anywhere for the public to make works available.
Here's what Europeans can do about this:
* Pledge 2019 : make your MEP promise to vote against Article 13. The vote comes just before
elections, so MEPs are extremely interested in the issues on voters' minds.
* Save Your Internet : contact your MEP and ask them to protect the internet
from this terrible idea.
* Turn out and protest on March 23 , two days ahead of the vote. Protests are planned in cities and towns in every EU
Since Tumblr announced its porn ban in December, many users reacted by explaining that they mainly used the site for browsing not-safe-for-work content, and they threatened to leave the platform if the ban were enforced. It now appears that many users
have made good on that threat: Tumblr's traffic has dropped nearly 30% since December.
The ban removed explicit posts from public view, including any media that portrayed sex acts, exposed genitals, and female-presenting nipples.
Despite the prevailing porn ban in Uganda, it can safely be said that pornographic materials and information has never been more consumed than now. The latest web rankings from Alexa show that Ugandans consume more pornographic materials and information
than news and government information, among other relevant materials.
The US website Porn555.com is ranked as the 6th most popular website in Uganda, ahead of Daily Monitor, Twitter, BBC among others.
The country's internet censors claim to
have blocked 30 of the main porn websites so perhaps that is the reason for porn555 to be the most popular rather then the more obvious PornHub, YouPorn, xHamster etc.
Thousands of people in Moscow and other Russian cities took to the streets over the weekend to protest legislation they fear could lead to widespread internet censorship in the country.
The protests, which were some of the biggest protests in the
Russian capital in years, came in response to a bill in parliament that would route all internet traffic through servers in Russia, making virtual private networks (VPNs) ineffective. Critics note that the bill creates an internet firewall similar to
People gathered in a cordoned off Prospekt Sakharova street in Moscow, made speeches on a stage and chanted slogans such as hands off the internet and no to isolation, stop breaking the Russian internet. The rally gathered around 15,300
people, according to White Counter, an NGO that counts participants at rallies. Moscow police put the numbers at 6,500.
The House of Lords Communications Committee has called for a new, overarching censorship framework so that the services in the digital world are held accountable to an enforceable set of government rules.
The Lords Communications Committee writes:
In its report 'Regulating in a digital world' the committee notes that over a dozen UK regulators have a remit covering the digital world but there is no body which has complete oversight.
As a result, regulation of the digital environment is fragmented, with gaps and overlaps. Big tech companies have failed to adequately tackle online harms.
Responses to growing public concern have been piecemeal and inadequate.
The Committee recommends a new Digital Authority, guided by 10 principles to inform regulation of the digital world.
The chairman of the committee, Lord Gilbert of Panteg , said:
"The Government should not just be responding to news headlines but looking ahead so that the services that constitute the digital world can be held accountable to an agreed set of principles.
Self-regulation by online platforms is clearly failing. The current regulatory framework is out of date. The evidence we heard made a compelling and urgent case for a new approach to regulation. Without intervention, the largest tech
companies are likely to gain ever more control of technologies which extract personal data and make decisions affecting people's lives. Our proposals will ensure that rights are protected online as they are offline while keeping the internet open to
innovation and creativity, with a new culture of ethical behaviour embedded in the design of service."
Recommendations for a new regulatory approach Digital Authority
A new 'Digital
Authority' should be established to co-ordinate regulators, continually assess regulation and make recommendations on which additional powers are necessary to fill gaps. The Digital Authority should play a key role in providing the public, the Government
and Parliament with the latest information. It should report to a new joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, whose remit would be to consider all matters related to the digital world.
10 principles for regulation
The 10 principles identified in the committee's report should guide all regulation of the internet. They include accountability, transparency, respect for privacy and freedom of expression. The principles will help the industry,
regulators, the Government and users work towards a common goal of making the internet a better, more respectful environment which is beneficial to all. If rights are infringed, those responsible should be held accountable in a fair and transparent way.
Recommendations for specific action Online harms and a duty of care
A duty of care should be imposed on online services which host and curate content which can openly be uploaded and accessed by the public. Given the urgent need to address online harms, Ofcom's remit should expand to include
responsibility for enforcing the duty of care.
Online platforms should make community standards clearer through a new classification framework akin to that of the British Board of Film Classification. Major platforms should
invest in more effective moderation systems to uphold their community standards.
Users should have greater control over the collection of personal data. Maximum privacy and safety settings should be the default.
Data controllers and data processors should be required to publish an
annual data transparency statement detailing which forms of behavioural data they generate or purchase from third parties, how they are stored, for how long, and how they are used and transferred.
The Government should
empower the Information Commissioner's Office to conduct impact-based audits where risks associated with using algorithms are greatest. Businesses should be required to explain how they use personal data and what their algorithms do.
The modern internet is characterised by the concentration of market power in a small number of companies which operate online platforms. Greater use of data portability might help, but this will require more interoperability.
The Government should consider creating a public-interest test for data-driven mergers and acquisitions.
Regulation should recognise the inherent power of intermediaries.
Russia's parliament has advanced repressive new internet laws allowing the authorities to jail or fine those who spread supposed 'fake news' or disrespect government officials online.
Under the proposed laws, which still await final passage and
presidential signature, people found guilty of spreading indecent posts that demonstrate disrespect for society, the state, (and) state symbols of the Russian Federation, as well as government officials such as President Vladimir Putin, can face up to 15
days in administrative detention. Private individuals who post fake news can be hit will small fines of between $45 and $75, and legal entities face much higher penalties of up to $15,000, according to draft legislation.
The anti-fake news bill,
which passed the Duma, or lower house of parliament, also compels ISPs to block access to content which offends human dignity and public morality.
It defines fake news as any unverified information that threatens someone's life and (or) their
health or property, or threatens mass public disorder or danger, or threatens to interfere or disrupt vital infrastructure, transport or social services, credit organizations, or energy, industrial, or communications facilities.
A chef has criticised Instagram after it decided that a photograph she posted of two pigs' trotters and a pair of ears needed to be protected from 'sensitive' readers.
Olia Hercules, a writer and chef who regularly appears on Saturday Kitchen and
Sunday Brunch , shared the photo alongside a caption in which she praised the quality and affordability of the ears and trotters before asking why the cuts had fallen out of favour with people in the UK.
However Hercules later discovered
that the image had been censored by the photo-sharing app with a warning that read: Sensitive content. This photo contains sensitive content which some people may find offensive or disturbing.
Hercules hit back at the decision on Twitter,
condemning Instagram and the general public for becoming detached from reality.
Sky News has learned that the government has delayed setting a date for when age verification rules will come into force due to concerns regarding the security and human rights issues posed by the rules. A DCMS representative said:
This is a world-leading step forward to protect our children from adult content which is currently far too easy to access online.
The government, and the BBFC as the regulator, have taken the time to get this
right and we will announce a commencement date shortly.
Previously the government indicated that age verification would start from about Easter but the law states that 3 months notice must be given for the start date. Official notice
has yet to be published so the earliest it could start is already June 2019.
The basic issue is that the Digital Economy Act underpinning age verification does not mandate that identity data and browsing provided of porn users should be protected
by law. The law makers thought that GDPR would be sufficient for data protection, but in fact it only requires that user consent is required for use of that data. All it requires is for users to tick the consent box, probably without reading the
deliberately verbose or vague terms and conditions provided. After getting the box ticked the age verifier can then do more or less what they want to do with the data.
Realising that this voluntary system is hardly ideal, and that the world's
largest internet porn company Mindgeek is likely to become the monopoly gatekeeper of the scheme, the government has moved on to considering some sort of voluntary kitemark scheme to try and convince porn users that an age verification company can be
trusted with the data. The kitemark scheme would appoint an audit company to investigate the age verification implementations and to approve those that use good practises.
I would guess that this scheme is difficult to set up as it would be a
major risk for audit companies to approve age verification systems based upon voluntary data protection rules. If an 'approved' company were later found to be selling, misusing data or even getting hacked, then the auditor could be sued for negligent
advice, whilst the age verification company could get off scot-free.
The Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) was set up in 2010 by ACPO (and run by the Metropolitan Police) to remove unlawful terrorist material content from the Internet, with a specific focus on UK based material.
CTIRU works with
internet platforms to identify content which breaches their terms of service and requests that they remove the content.
CTIRU also compile a list of URLs for material hosted outside the UK which are blocked on networks of the public estate.
As of December 2017, CTIRU is linked to the removal of 300,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material from the internet
Censor or not censor?
The CTIRU consider its scheme to be voluntary, but detailed
notification under the e-Commerce Directive has legal effect, as it may strip the platform of liability protection. Platforms may have "actual knowledge" of potentially criminal material, if they receive a well-formed notification, with the
result that they would be regarded in law as the publisher from this point on.
At volume, any agency will make mistakes. The CTIRU is said to be reasonably accurate: platforms say they decline only 20 or 30% of material. That
shows considerable scope for errors. Errors could unduly restrict the speech of individuals, meaning journalists, academics, commentators and others who hold normal, legitimate opinions.
A handful of CTIRU notices have been made
public via the Lumen transparency project. Some of these show some very poor decisions to send a notification. In one case, UKIP Voices, an obviously fake, unpleasant and defamatory blog portraying the UKIP party as cartoon figures but also vile racists
and homophobes, was considered to be an act of violent extremism. Two notices were filed by the CTIRU to have it removed for extremism. However, it is hard to see that the site could fall within the CTIRU's remit as the site's content is clearly
In other cases, we believe the CTIRU had requested removal of extremist material that had been posted in an academic or journalistic context.
Some posters, for instance at wordpress.com, are
notified by the service's owners, Automattic, that the CTIRU has asked for content to be removed. This affords a greater potential for a user to contes tor object to requests. However, the CTIRU is not held to account for bad requests. Most people will
find it impossible to stop the CTIRU from making requests to remove lawful material, which might still be actioned by companies, despite the fact that the CTIRU would be attempting to remove legal material, which is clearly beyond its remit.
When content is removed, there is no requirement to notify people viewing the content that it has been removed because it may be unlawful or what those laws are, nor that the police asked for it to be removed. There is no advice to
people that may have seen the content or return to view it again about the possibility that the content may have been intended to draw them into illegal and dangerous activities, nor are they given advice about how to seek help.
There is also no external review, as far as we are aware. External review would help limit mistakes. Companies regard the CTIRU as quite accurate, and cite a 70 or 80% success rate in their applications. That is potentially a lot of requests that should not have been filed, however, and that might not have been accepted if put before a legally-trained and independent professional for review.
As many companies will perform little or no review, and requests are filed to many companies for the same content, which will then sometimes be removed in error and sometimes not, any errors at all should be concerning.
Crime or not crime?
The CTIRU is organised as part of a counter-terrorism programme, and claim its activities warrant operating in secrecy, including rejecting freedom of information requests on the
grounds of national security and detection and prevention of crime.
However, its work does not directly relate to specific threats or attempt to prevent crimes. Rather, it is aimed at frustrating criminals by giving them extra
work to do, and at reducing the availability of material deemed to be unlawful.
Taking material down via notification runs against the principles of normal criminal investigation. Firstly, it means that the criminal is
"tipped off" that someone is watching what they are doing. Some platforms forward notices to posters, and the CTIRU does not suggest that this is problematic.
Secondly, even if the material is archived, a notification
results in destruction of evidence. Account details, IP addresses and other evidence normally vital for investigations is destroyed.
This suggests that law enforcement has little interest in prosecuting the posters of the content
at issue. Enforcement agencies are more interested in the removal of content, potentially prioritised on political rather than law enforcement grounds, as it is sold by politicians as a silver bullet in the fight against terrorism.
Beyond these considerations, because there is an impact on free expression if material is removed, and because police may make mistakes, their work should be seen as relating to content removal rather than as a secretive matter.
Little is know about the CTIRU's work, but it claims to be removing up to 100,000 "pieces of content" from around 300 platforms annually. This statistic is regularly quoted to
parliament, and is given as an indication of the irresponsibility of major platforms to remove content. It has therefore had a great deal of influence on the public policy agenda.
However, the statistic is inconsistent with
transparency reports at major platforms, where we would expect most of the takedown notices to be filed. The CTIRU insists that its figure is based on individual URLs removed. If so, much further analysis is needed to understand the impact of these URL
removals, as the implication is that they must be hosted on small, relatively obscure services.
Additionally, the CTIRU claims that there are no other management statistics routinely created about its work. This seems somewhat
implausible, but also, assuming it is true, negligent. For instance, the CTIRU should know its success and failure rate, or the categorisation of the different organisations or belief systems it is targeting. An absence of collection of routine data
implies that the CTIRU is not ensuring it is effective in its work. We find this position, produced in response to our Freedom of Information requests, highly surprising and something that should be of interest to parliamentarians.
Lack of transparency increases the risks of errors and bad practice at the CTIRU, and reduces public confidence in its work. Given the government's legitimate calls for greater transparency on these matters at platforms, it should
apply the same standards to its own work.
Both government and companies can improve transparency at the CTIRU. The government should provide specific oversight, much in the same way as CCTV and Biometrics have a Commissioner.
Companies should publish notifications, redacted if necessary, to the Lumen database or elsewhere. Companies should make the full notifications available for analysis to any suitably-qualified academic, using the least restrictive agreements practical.
The idea is that the government of any European Member State will be able to order any website to remove content considered "terrorist". No independent judicial authorisation
will be needed to do so, letting governments abuse the wide definition of "terrorism". The only thing IMCO accepted to add is for government's orders to be subject to "judicial review", which can mean anything.
In France, the government's orders to remove "terrorist content" are already subject to "judicial review", where an independent body is notified of all removal orders and may ask judges to asses them. This has not been of much help:
only once has this censorship been submitted to a judge's review. It was found to be unlawful, but more than one year and half after it was ordered. During this time, the French government was able to abusively censor content, in this case, far-left
publications by two French Indymedia outlets.
Far from simplifying, this Regulation will add confusion as authorities from one member state will be able to order removal in other one, without necessarily understanding context.
Unrealistic removal delays
Regarding the one hour delay within which the police can order a hosting service provider to block any content reported as "terrorist", there was no real progress
either. It has been replaced by a deadline of at least eight hours, with a small exception for "microentreprises" that have not been previously subject to a removal order (in this case, the "deadline shall be no sooner than the end of the
next working day").
This narrow exception will not allow the vast majority of Internet actors to comply with such a strict deadline. Even if the IMCO Committee has removed any mention of proactive measures that can be imposed
on Internet actors, and has stated that "automated content filters" shall not be used by hosting service providers, this very tight deadline, and the threat of heavy fines will only incite them to adopt the moderation tools developed by the
Web's juggernauts (Facebook and Google) and use the broadest possible definition of terrorism to avoid the risk of penalties. The impossible obligation to provide a point of contact reachable 24/7 has not been modified either. The IMCO opinion has even
worsened the financial penalties that can be imposed: it is now "at least" 1% and up to 4% of the hosting service provider's turnover.
The next step will be on 11 March, when the
CULT Committee (Culture and Education) will adopt its opinion.
The last real opportunity to obtain the rejection of this dangerous text will be on 21 March 2019, in the LIBE Committee (Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs).
European citizens must contact their MEPs to demand this rejection. We have provided a dedicated page on our website with an analysis of this Regulation and a tool to
directly contact the MEPs in charge.
Starting today, and for the weeks to come, call your MEPS and demand they reject this text.
Pornhub and sister websites will soon require ID from users before being able to browse its porn.
The government most recently suggested that this requirement would start from about Easter this year, but this date has already slipped. The government
will give 3 months notice of the start date and as this has not yet been announced, the earliest start date is currently in June.
Pornhub and YouPorn will use the AgeID system, which requires users to identify themselves with an email address and
a credit card, passport, driving licence or an age verified mobile phone number.
Metro.co.uk spoke to a spokesperson from AgeID to find out how it will work (and what you'll actually see when you try to log in). James Clark, AgeID spokesperson,
When a user first visits a site protected by AgeID, a landing page will appear with a prompt for the user to verify their age before they can access the site.
First, a user can register an
AgeID account using an email address and password. The user verifies their email address and then chooses an age verification option from our list of 3rd party providers, using options such as Mobile SMS, Credit Card, Passport, or Driving Licence.
The second option is to purchase a PortesCard or voucher from a retail outlet. Using this method, a customer does not need to register an email address, and can simply access the site using the Portes app.
Thereafter, users will be able to use this username/password combination to log into all porn sites which use the Age ID system.
It is a one-time verification, with a simple single sign-on for future access. If a user verifies on one AgeID protected site, they will not need to perform this verification again on any other site carrying AgeID.
The PortesCard is available to purchase from selected high street retailers and any of the UK's 29,000 PayPoint outlets as a voucher. Once a card or voucher is purchased, its unique validation code must be activated via the Portes app
within 24 hours before expiring.
If a user changes device or uses a fresh browser, they will need to login with the credentials they used to register. If using the same browser/device, the user has a choice as to whether they wish
to login every time, for instance if they are on a shared device (the default option), or instead allow AgeID to log them in automatically, perhaps on a mobile phone or other personal device.
Clark claimed that AgeID's system does not
store details of people's ID, nor does it store their browsing history. This sounds a little unconvincing and must be taken on trust. And this statement rather seems to be contradicted by a previous line noting that user's email will be verified, so that
piece of identity information at least will need to be stored and read.
The Portes App solution seems a little doubtful too. It claims not to log device data and then goes on to explain that the PortesCard needs to be locked to a device, rather
suggesting that it will in fact be using device data. It will be interesting to see what app permissions the app will require when installing. Hopefully it won't ask to read your contact list.
This AgeID statement rather leaves the AVSecure card
idea in the cold. The AVSecure system of proving your age anonymously at a shop, and then obtaining a password for use on porn websites seems to be the most genuinely anonymous idea suggested so far, but it will be pretty useless if it can't be used on
the main porn websites.
German Data Privacy Commissioner Ulrich Kelber is also a computer scientist, which makes him uniquely qualified to comment on the potential consequences of the proposed new EU Copyright Directive. The Directive will be voted on at the end of this month,
and its Article 13 requires that online communities, platforms, and services prevent their users
from committing copyright infringement, rather than ensuring that infringing materials are speedily removed.
In a new
official statement on the Directive (
English translation ), Kelber warns that Article 13 will inevitably lead to the use of automated filters, because there is
no imaginable way for the organisations that run online services to examine everything their users post and determine whether each message, photo, video, or audio clip is a copyright violation.
Kelber goes on to warn that this
will exacerbate the already dire problem of market concentration in the tech sector, and expose Europeans to particular risk of online surveillance and manipulation.
That's because under Article 13, Europe's online companies will
be required to block all infringement , even if they are very small and specialised (the
Directive gives an online community three years' grace period before it acquires this obligation, less time if the service grosses over ?5m/year). These small- and medium-sized European services (SMEs) will not be able to afford to license the catalogues
of the big movie, music, and book publishers, so they'll have to rely on filters to block the unlicensed material.
But if a company is too small to afford licenses, it's also too small to build filters. Google's Content ID for
YouTube cost a reported ?100 million to build and run, and it only does a fraction of the blocking required under Article 13. That means that they'll have to buy filter services from someone else. The most likely filter vendors are the US Big Tech
companies like Google and Facebook, who will have to build and run filters anyway, and could recoup their costs by renting access to these filters to smaller competitors.
As Kelber explains, this means that Europeans who use European services in the EU will
nevertheless likely have every public communication they make channeled into offshore tech companies' servers for analysis. These European services will then have to channel much of their revenues to the big US tech companies or specialist filter
So Article 13 guarantees America's giant companies a permanent share of all small EU companies' revenues and access to an incredibly valuable data-stream generated by all European discourse, conversation, and
expression. These companies have a long track record of capitalising on users' personal data to their advantage, and between that advantage and the revenues they siphon off of their small European competitors, they are likely to gain permanent dominance
over Europe's Internet.
Kelber says that this is the inevitable consequence of filters, and has challenged the EU to explain how Article 13's requirements could be satisfied without filters. He's called for "a thoughtful
overhaul" of the bill based on "data privacy considerations," describing the market concentration as a "clear and present danger."
We agree, and so do millions of Europeans. In fact,
the petition against Article 13 has attracted more signatures than any other petition in European history and is on
track to be the most popular petition in the history of the human race within a matter of days.
With less than a month to go before the final vote in the European Parliament on the new Copyright Directive, Kelber's remarks
couldn't be more urgent. Subjecting Europeans' communications to mass commercial surveillance and arbitrary censorship is bad for human rights and free expression, but as Kelber so ably argues, it's also a disaster for competition.
Thailand's military-controlled parliament has unanimously passed a new Cybersecurity Act to give the junta deeper control over the internet.
The act allows the National Cybersecurity Committee, run by Thailand's generals, to summon individuals for
questioning and enter private property without court orders in case of actual or anticipated 'serious cyber threats'. Court warrants are not required for action in emergency cases and criminal penalties will be imposed on those who do not comply with
The authorities can now search and seize data and hardware without a warrant if a threat is identified by the unaccountable body.
The world's biggest internet companies including Facebook, Google and Twitter are represented by a trade group call The Internet Association. This organisation has written to UK government ministers to outline how they believe harmful online activity
should be regulated.
The letter has been sent to the culture, health and home secretaries. The letter will be seen as a pre-emptive move in the coming negotiation over new rules to govern the internet. The government is due to publish a delayed White
Paper on online harms in the coming weeks.
The letter outlines six principles:
"Be targeted at specific harms, using a risk-based approach
"Provide flexibility to adapt to changing technologies, different services and evolving societal expectations
"Maintain the intermediary liability
protections that enable the internet to deliver significant benefits for consumers, society and the economy
"Be technically possible to implement in practice
"Provide clarity and certainty for consumers, citizens and internet
"Recognise the distinction between public and private communication"
Many leading figures in the UK technology sector fear a lack of expertise in government, and hardening public sentiment against the excesses of the internet, will push the Online Harms paper in a more radical direction.
Three of the key areas
of debate are the definition of online harm, the lack of liability for third-party content, and the difference between public and private communication.
The companies insist that government should recognise the distinction between clearly illegal
content and content which is harmful, but not illegal. If these leading tech companies believe this government definition of harm is too broad, their insistence on a distinction between illegal and harmful content may be superseded by another set of
The companies also defend the principle that platforms such as YouTube permit users to post and share information without fear that those platforms will be held liable for third-party content. Another area which will be of particular
interest to the Home Office is the insistence that care should be taken to avoid regulation encroaching into the surveillance of private communications.