#OnlineSafetyBill supporting documents: Factsheet, Revised Impact Assessment, ECHR Memo, Regulatory Policy Committee Opinion gov.uk/government/pub… The hourly cost of a regulatory professional has reduced by 4p since last year, to £20.62. New in this IA is acknowledgment of the need for legal advice on whether a small/medium business is in or out of scope.

Here it is, as introduced in Parliament today. #OnlineSafetyBill bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137/pub… All 225 pages of it, plus 126 pages of Explanatory Notes.

"This reduces the risk that platforms are incentivised to over-remove legal material ... because they are put under pressure to do so by campaign groups or individuals who claim that controversial content causes them psychological harm." 1/2

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1503662845837381632

She is talking about 'legal but harmful', but does she realise that applying the illegality safety duty to the proposed new 'harm-based offence' will have exactly that result? 2/2

Agog to see what tech they think can distinguish between news publisher content and the rest. An Ofcom-approved tag list?

https://twitter.com/OwenMeredithNMA/status/1503687041044951040

Presumably they have an answer, since this issue has been lurking ever since the impossible-to-fulfil promise made by the then Culture Secretary at the launch of the White Paper in April 2019: 1/2

For whatever reason, this front page @thetimes story about @Ofcom's AVMS changes to the Broadcasting Code doesn't appear in the online version. Ofcom proposed amending the definition of hate speech to include the characteristics, as set out in Article 21 of the EU Charter, as follows:

My take on last week's Privacy International and La Quadrature decisions, and implications for UK data protection adequacy. cyberleagle.com/2020/10/hard-q… Thread summary of some central points follows. (The post is a long read and covers much more.)

Art 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Here are ten things that it doesn't say:

The "initial" list of online harms. "...by design, neither exhaustive nor fixed. A static list could prevent swift regulatory action to address new forms of online harm, new technologies, content and new online activities." #onlineharms Guess they haven't been reading the right blogs. cyberleagle.com/2019/03/a-ten-…

Some predictions of possible consequences of the Strasbourg Big Brother Watch judgment for the Investigatory Powers Act. #IPAct 1/6 1. Oversight of entire bulk interception selection process from start (bearer selection) through middle (selectors etc) to end (analyst searches etc).

Public description of nature and granularity of oversight at each stage. Perhaps doable within current #IPAct framework. 2/6

This commentary on the European Commission’s Communication ‘Tackling Illegal Content Online’ has just entered my top 10 all time posts. At 8,500 words admittedly it’s on the long side. So here goes a threaded summary. cyberleagle.com/2017/10/toward… 1/20 The EU Council Freedom of Expression Guidelines stress the importance of “protecting intermediaries from the obligation of blocking Internet content without prior due process.”

1/7 At the heart of the end to end encryption debate is this. 2/7 If you take technical steps to make the internet unsafe for terrorists and criminals, you make it unsafe for the rest of us.