5 Online Safety Act common misconceptions – debunked
It is one of the more divisive pieces of legislation to be introduced in recent years which will fundamentally shape the way the internet operates.
Online safety campaigners suggest it doesn't go far enough; digital rights groups are concerned about the significant impact it could have on freedom of expression online and user privacy. The fierce debate risks leading to misconceptions around the legislation.
We dispel some of the common misconceptions below.
1. Only the large online platforms need to be concerned
Not correct. The new legislation applies to any service that targets the UK and operates a website allowing user-to-user engagement or a search engine. There are limited exemptions including email and texts services or services that allow engagement only through comments or reviews on content published by the service provider (e.g. product reviews). There are also more burdensome duties applying to higher volume or higher risk services – precisely which companies fall into that category is to be determined in regulations set by the Secretary of State. But the scope of the legislation is extremely broad and almost every service allowing user-to-user engagement or operating a search engine in the UK will need to start implementing appropriate measures to tackle illegal content.
2. The legislation mandates steps to be taken by online platforms to tackle specific pieces of content
Not entirely. The legislation has been described as a "systems" act – introducing statutory "duties of care" and targeting algorithmic processes and technologies used by platforms and search engines rather than individual pieces of content. Platforms and search engines will need to undertake risk assessments to identify the likelihood of users encountering illegal content and, in the cases of services likely to be accessed by children, the likelihood of children encountering content harmful to them – and to put in place measures to mitigate the risks identified. But the legislation doesn't specify the steps or measures to be taken by online platforms to tackle illegal or harmful content. Those measures will be detailed in Codes of Practice produced by Ofcom over the next year. A service provider will be treated as complying with a relevant duty if the provider takes or uses the measures described in a code of practice which are recommended for the purpose of compliance with the duty in question – but it may choose to take alternative measures if it can justify (and keeps a record of) how alternative measures demonstrate compliance.
3. The legislation makes all that is illegal offline, illegal online
The position is more nuanced.
Illegal content under the Act is content which amounts to a criminal offence, rather than anything that could result in civil liability (e.g., defamatory content or privacy-infringing content ).
The Act distinguishes between "priority illegal content" (which is that deemed to be higher risk) and "illegal content" and slightly different duties apply to each type.
"Priority offences" are recognised in Schedule 5, 6 and 7 (child sexual abuse offences, terrorism offences, and "other" priority offences) – these criminal offences are already in existence offline and the legislation recognises they can also be committed online (and are deemed "priority illegal content") to the extent (a) the content consists of words, images, speech or sound which amounts to a priority offence or (b) the possession, viewing or accessing of the content, or its publication or dissemination amounts to a priority offence. The Act also recognises that there could be other criminal offences committed online under existing statute. These are deemed to constitute a relevant offence and can amount to "illegal content" under the Act provided the victim or intended victim of the offence is an individual.
The Act doesn't introduce new sanctions for users who post illegal content or priority illegal content – any action against them would be assessed and taken in accordance with existing criminal law. Instead, the focus is on regulating online platforms' approach to this type of material – requiring services to take proportionate measures to prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content, to mitigate the risk of services being used to commission or facilitate a priority offence, and to mitigate the risk of harm to individuals posed by all illegal content. That said, the Act does introduce some new criminal offences for users – the majority of which are deemed "communications offences" – for example sending threatening communications or cyber-flashing.
4. The legislation will put an end to end-to-end encryption in the UK
Uncertain, but looking unlikely. The draft Bill never explicitly prohibited end-to-end encryption, but serious concerns were raised about the implications of provisions allowing Ofcom to require companies to use specific technology to identify and take down terrorism or child sexual abuse content. The concern was that this could permit state-backed surveillance of the private correspondence of UK citizens which would infringe privacy and pose a threat to UK national security. Secure messaging services including WhatsApp and Signal threatened to withdraw their services from the UK if the Bill was passed with the provisions included. Following ongoing objections, the government recently acknowledged that Ofcom would only be able to require companies to scan their networks for offending content when a technology had been developed capable of accurately identifying only offending content (which does not yet exist) and, in any event, Ofcom would need to take into account data protection and human rights law before issuing a notice. The government has stressed that its approach has not changed – and the provisions of concern remain in the legislation – but in practice it looks like they will not be effective until accurate and privacy-preserving technology is brought into existence.
5. Senior managers could be criminally liable for any failure by a company to comply with the Act
Not correct. Whilst the circumstances under which senior managers can be held criminally liable for non-compliance have expanded during the Bill's passage through Parliament, individual criminal liability is still confined to specific areas in the legislation. This includes instances where an in-scope service fails to comply with an information notice which names a senior manager; and where a criminal offence under the Act is committed by the body corporate with the consent, connivance, or neglect of the corporate officer. It's correct that tech executives can be held criminally liable where a company fails to comply with its duty to protect children from harmful content online, but only if Ofcom has undertaken an investigation resulting in a "confirmation decision" requiring the platform to take certain steps to ensure compliance with a child safety duty and the company fails to do so both without reasonable excuse and with the officer's consent, connivance or neglect. So, there's no wholesale introduction of senior manager criminal liability which will only arise in specific circumstances.