Snooping government new policy to monitor your messages.

So tech companies have scanned encrypted messages for illegal content and decided to report people for feeding pigeons on the street 🤭😅😅 hilarious!

I find this a worrying development - especially given that people these days are sometimes being treated as criminals just for exercising our British right to "freedom of speech".

It has become shockingly frequent for individuals/organisations/etc to monitor peoples private conversations - and most of the time those conversations are not going to be genuinely illegal or genuinely shocking. Goodness knows I've been called something I'm not at all before now - including on here - just because of some other peoples personal opinions being different to my (perfectly legal) opinions.

So - yep...I know monitoring of private conversations has been going on for literally decades (still remember private CND phonecalls - including one or two of mine!!!!! - obviously having a "spy on the line" back in the 1980s).

OH knows two people who have been involved in the online safety legislation, one has had his family directly and tragically affected by a member of his family being given access to unsuitable and dangerous material. They have both said that it is a difficult line to tread between preventing dangerous criminals from having access online to our children and vulnerable adults and protecting the privacy of the ordinary person. (my paraphrasing, obviously) Frankly I'd rather err on the side of ruffling a few feathers than allowing criminals completely free access to the online world so they can target people.

nanna8

Some only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. They don’t know about google, obviously. Can’t be bothered arguing with them.

Should have gone to Specsavers

CariadAgain- ot reassure you, the Online Safety Act places a duty on tech companies to scan encrypted messages for illegal content, e.g. Child Exploitation and Abuse material, Terrorist material, cyber crime material- in the interprets of public safety. This is timely because the tech companies moderation policies have become increasingly lax which is a risk to public safety. It would help enormously if the tech companies had fit for purpose moderation policies- then perhaps the Act would not be necessary.

Freedom of speech is legal is the UK- and the Online Safety Act duty is solely in relation to "criminal activity".

I'm not at all bothered if anyone listens to my conversations or reads anything I've typed online.
It would be very boring for them.

In the UK free speech is a fundamental right under the Human Rights Act, allowing people to hold, receive and share ideas and information freely. The right is balanced with responsibilities that can be restricted by law for things like national security, public order, health, reputation, preventing hate speech, preventing disclosure of confidential information or incitement to crime, or harms others.

The balance of rights against responsibilities of free speech is perhaps a separate post of interest.

Freedom of Speech is the main argument put forward by tech companies to avoid their duties to moderate their criminal online platform activity, to deflect from the key issues.

Allowing criminals completely free, anonymous, unfettered access online is already placing the public at huge risk, particularly children . That risk is growing. The risk places ever increasing pressure on the resources and ability of law enforcement agencies to protect the public .

What alternative suggestions to the Online Safety Act would its detractors suggest?

I think ReclaimTheNetUK may be funded by the tech industry, with vested interests.

The tech companies could stop much of the illegal use of technology but that would hit their profits, they are making £ billions but not taking responsibility.

David49 14.45 👍

By the by, as Sueinkent has not responded to any questions, have tried to find out more about Reclaim The Net UK and it doesn't exist.

ReclaimTheNet.org is a US company. Its aim is to "Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom." It has a very opaque website with no information whatsoever about directors or owners or location etc. Appears politically motivated seemingly showing favour to far right wing countries/parties. Reports on global efforts regarding online safety efforts.

Having said that it was the Conservative Party that proposed the Online Safety Act originally in UK in 2021 and was given Royal Assent in 2023.

Riiight. So the Tories bring in an act which allows criminals' online activity to be monitored, and a US company with dubious credentials is used to explain to us all how the new (Labour) government is snooping on us, and this is backed up with the as yet unverified idea that people are being 'lifted off the streets' for feeding pigeons?

Meanwhile, we are treated to vague comments about how 'some' read and hear what they want to, which I'm guessing from the previous posts of the person saying it is another dig at Labour, but can't be sure as the post itself is clear as mud.

So that's cleared that up

I would happily submit my texts and other online activity to the police if it would help get a conviction, but I don't want to see all communication routinely screened, particularly if they are stored for future use. It may be that what we are all doing and saying is perfectly legal and acceptable now, but a change of government could change all that in a heartbeat. 'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is a very shortsighted POV, in my opinion.

Don't believe everything you read.

Allira

DaisyAnneReturns

nanna8

The British government is just as bad with all their CCTV and jailing people for social media comments. Pot kettle black.

Could you support thst with facts - ones that can be fact checked? I doubt it.

Easy to Google and find out that there are several arrests daily for posts of varying kinds on social media, some resulting in jail sentences.

Many are terrorism related. Others are considered to be racist or hate speech.

If it’s easy to Google, could you share a couple of concrete examples or sources?

“Several arrests daily” is a specific claim, but without dates, jurisdictions, or figures it’s hard to verify or discuss meaningfully.

It's a bit repetitious, I know but these are the facts re the OP. Ofcom is not currently scanning everyone’s private encrypted chats on phones before they’re sent.

Real: The UK Online Safety Act expands Ofcom’s powers and could, in theory, be used to push platforms toward scanning certain private communications for illegal material.

Fake/misleading: The idea that Ofcom is already checking every encrypted message you send on your phone before it’s encrypted. That is not happening.

David49

The tech companies could stop much of the illegal use of technology but that would hit their profits, they are making £ billions but not taking responsibility.

👍

They have a lot to answer for.

Given that I can find no previous posts by "Sueinkent",

although I do apologise, if I'm wrong,

it could be an advertising flyer for ReclaimTheNetUK planted into gransnet, so wise to note

Wyllow3 16.15 👍 I agree

Wyllow3

Given that I can find no previous posts by "Sueinkent",

although I do apologise, if I'm wrong,

*it could be an advertising flyer for ReclaimTheNetUK planted into gransnet, so wise to note*

Interesting.

I did think I'd seen the username before but could be mistaken.

LemonJam

David49 14.45 👍

By the by, as Sueinkent has not responded to any questions, have tried to find out more about Reclaim The Net UK and it doesn't exist.

ReclaimTheNet.org is a US company. Its aim is to "Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom." It has a very opaque website with no information whatsoever about directors or owners or location etc. Appears politically motivated seemingly showing favour to far right wing countries/parties. Reports on global efforts regarding online safety efforts.

Having said that it was the Conservative Party that proposed the Online Safety Act originally in UK in 2021 and was given Royal Assent in 2023.

Thanks for the research LemonJam. We have to work at knowing these things if we are to get best use out of the technological advances while stopping criminal behaviour.

I'm not mistaken,
Sueinkent posted on a few threads in 2025.

Perhaps she'll come back and let us know what she thinks.

That's fine I couldn't find any in the search space, yes a return would help.

Again, thanks for your research LemonJam.
Just want to add that I have seen the OP on other Threads, but not frequently.
Maybe having a busy Sunday?

Cross posts Allira.

Are you sure this isn't just the Chat GPT stuff.
That's what I read.

SueinKent has been an active member of Gransnet for at least 6 months

Reclaim.theNet.org posted an article re UK government surveillance of phones last December.

UK Lawmakers Push Device Surveillance & VPN Age Checks share.google/zFiOaIoNaRIDfVNCr