{"id":12511,"date":"2023-01-20T21:15:00","date_gmt":"2023-01-20T21:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/TheNextWeb=1393643"},"modified":"2023-01-20T21:15:00","modified_gmt":"2023-01-20T21:15:00","slug":"tech-bosses-face-jail-for-harmful-content-under-new-uk-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/?p=12511","title":{"rendered":"Tech bosses face jail for \u2018harmful content\u2019 under new UK laws"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n

Plans to jail tech bosses over \u201charmful content\u201d will endanger the UK\u2019s tech sector and civil rights, <\/span>campaigners have warned.<\/span><\/p>\n

The threat of prison emerged in the British government\u2019s Online Safety Bill. Under new amendments to the legislation, senior managers at internet platforms could be jailed for failing to protect children from online harm. The revisions also mandate the removal of videos depicting illegal immigration \u201cin a positive light.\u201d  <\/span><\/p>\n

The changes follow pressure from politicians in the ruling Conservative party. The legislators had proposed introducing criminal liability for any breach of child safety duties, but the government has restricted this to intentional violations.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/p>\n

Get your tickets for TNW Valencia in March!<\/h4>\n

The heart of tech is coming to the heart of the Mediterranean<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In a statement<\/a>, Michelle Donelan, the UK\u2019s culture and digital minister, said only senior managers who \u201cconsented or connived\u201d to ignore enforcement notices risked imprisonment.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWhile this amendment will not affect those who have acted in good faith to comply in a proportionate way, it gives the Act additional teeth to deliver change and ensure that people are held to account if they fail to properly protect children,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Child safety groups welcomed the move<\/a> to make executives criminally liable, but critics have raised an array of concerns.<\/p>\n

A patchwork of complaints<\/h2>\n

The diversity of the dissent is striking.<\/p>\n

Wikimedia warned<\/a> the penalties will affect not only big tech corporations, but also volunteer-led content moderation and public interest websites. The non-profit also notes that mandatory age verification can institute extra data collection, which puts user privacy<\/a> at risk.<\/p>\n

Libertarians have added concerns<\/a> about the economic ramifications. They contend that threats of jail and heavy fines will stifle innovation and discourage startups<\/a> from operating in the UK.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u201cThe natural reponse will be to block users.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Matthew Lesh, head of public policy at the IEA<\/a>, a free-market think-tank, said the proposals would ultimately be a boon for big tech. He argues that the rules will raise greater barriers to entry for their smaller competitors.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is also a significant threat that UK users simply lose access to many parts of the web,\u201d Lesh told TNW. \u201cThe natural response of many platform operators, particularly those outside of the UK with a limited British audience, will be to block UK users. This was the response of thousands of US sites in response to GDPR.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Free speech campaigners, meanwhile, fear platforms<\/a> will be pushed to aggressively block content and deploy automated monitoring systems. This could lead to censorship of lawful posts, reduced access to online services, and restricted freedom of expression.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u201cThat could be quite subjective.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Further qualms have arisen over the Bill\u2019s ambiguities. Legal experts are wary that the rules will be open to different interpretations.<\/p>\n

\u201cSome of the Bill\u2019s provisions are based on risk of \u2018harm\u2019, as defined in the Bill: physical or psychological harm,\u201d Graham Smith<\/a>, an IT lawyer at Bird & Bird<\/a>, told TNW. \u201cThe government has said that psychological harm should not be limited to a medically recognised condition, so potentially that could be quite subjective.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The capacity to exploit the rules has raised considerable alarm. Law professors have accused<\/a> the government of using child safety as a smokescreen for \u201ccensorship and control.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tech<\/a> ethicists warn<\/span><\/a> the Bill could politicize \u201conline harm\u201d \u2014 a theory that\u2019s intensified over the migration proposal.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The politics of \u201charm\u201d<\/h2>\n

The new proposals would legally mandate the removal of posts showing people crossing the English channel in \u201ca positive light.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The government said this will help tackle illegal immigration encouraged by gangs. <\/span>Refugee charities, however, warn it will endanger the rights of vulnerable migrants \u2014 and set a perilous precedent for campaigners.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ORG<\/a>, a digital rights group, notes that censorship of small boat crossings would extend to search engines.<\/p>\n

\u201cWebsites could be demoted in listings if they have content deemed illegal,\u201d the organization said in a tweet<\/a>. \u201cThis could severely impact groups acting on refugee and migrant rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alisha Lewis, a local councillor for the Liberal Democrats party, <\/span>described the proposal<\/span><\/a> as a \u201cfascinating combo of poor policy literacy and absurdly directed nasty anti-refugee sentiment.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Censorship of images of small boat crossings extends to search engines. Websites could be demoted in listings if they have content deemed illegal. This could severely impact groups acting on refugee and migrant rights. #OnlineSafetyBill<\/a> https:\/\/t.co\/NGNjPZQygL<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Open Rights Group (@OpenRightsGroup) January 20, 2023<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Undoubtedly, online safety for children is a pressing issue. But the broad reach, punitive measures, and subjectivity of the proposals risk creating more problems than they<\/span> solves. It\u2019s nearly four years since the government\u2019s initial white paper was published, but the Online Safety Bill is still in disarray.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plans to jail tech bosses over \u201charmful content\u201d will endanger the UK\u2019s tech sector and civil rights, campaigners have warned. The threat of prison emerged in the British government\u2019s Online Safety Bill….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12512,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12511"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12511"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12511\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/12512"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12511"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12511"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12511"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}