Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Technology

UK Lawmakers Vote To Jail Tech Execs Who Fail To Protect Kids Online (arstechnica.com) 115

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
The United Kingdom wants to become the safest place for children to grow up online. Many UK lawmakers have argued that the only way to guarantee that future is to criminalize tech leaders whose platforms knowingly fail to protect children. From a report: Today, the UK House of Commons reached a deal to appease those lawmakers, Reuters reports, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government agreeing to modify the Online Safety Bill to ensure its passage. It now appears that tech company executives found to be "deliberately" exposing children to harmful content could soon risk steep fines and jail time of up to two years. The agreement was reached during the safety bill's remaining stages before a vote in the House of Commons. Next, it will move on to review by the House of Lords, where the BBC reports it will "face a lengthy journey."

Sunak says he will revise the bill to include new terms before it reaches the House of Lords, where lawmakers will have additional opportunities to revise the wording. Reports say that tech executives responsible for platforms hosting user-generated content would only be liable if they fail to take "proportionate measures" to prevent exposing children to harmful content, such as materials featuring child sexual abuse, child abuse, eating disorders, and self-harm. Some measures that tech companies can take to avoid jail time and fines of up to 10 percent of a company's global revenue include adding age verification, providing parental controls, and policing content. If passed, the Online Safety Bill would make managers liable for holding tech companies to their own community guidelines, including content and age restrictions. If a breach of online safety duties is discovered, UK media regulator Ofcom would be responsible for prosecuting tech leaders who fail to respond to enforcement notices. Anyone found to be acting in good faith to police content and protect kids reportedly won't be prosecuted.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Lawmakers Vote To Jail Tech Execs Who Fail To Protect Kids Online More

UK Lawmakers Vote To Jail Tech Execs Who Fail To Protect Kids Online

Comments Filter:

  • what ever happened (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @12:57PM (#63216782) Homepage
    to holding parents responsible for their own kids?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

      Parents have been replaced by the State. That was the desired consequence of destroying the family unit.

      • Re:what ever happened (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @01:48PM (#63216958)

        Ding! Winnar.

        In the west, and I've seen it happen in real time in the US, I imagine it's much the same across the pond, we've watched the family be destroyed for generations. Work requires more hours than anyone has to give, and most households not living in abject poverty require two incomes to even think about raising a family, leaving two parents unable to attend to their children for more than, at most, a couple hours either end of the day. Enter daycare, school as daycare replacement rather than actual school, and kids raised to believe having no real parents is just the way life works now raising their own families, which aren't so much families as people that happen to lay down inside the same four walls for five to eight hours a night.

        Add a little sprinkling of the fun phrasing of "it takes a village," and remove any critical thinking about what things used to be like so that you convince yourself that all of everything in the world needs to be "safe and sanitized" for the youngest among us, rather than allowing adults to be adults, and then give us a few rounds of, "Think of the children" in shaking, awed tones, and you can pretty much use that line of reasoning to implement any draconian measure. Because if you disagree, you must want to hurt children. Why do you want to hurt children?

        • In what era do you believe that parents typically had enough free time to bring up their kids right? Pre-industrial revolution perhaps?

          • Re:what ever happened (Score:4, Insightful)

            by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @03:20PM (#63217272)

            I dunno, there was a time, say in the fifties and sixties, where single parents going out to work a desk or factory job could keep a house afloat so the other parent could be an actual parent. I won't bother going into the specifics they got wrong back then, as there were plenty, but the continued suppression of wages, or at least keeping wages locked while the rest of the economy grows, leaves most families now needing two full-time workers just to survive.

            Not that I think any time has been perfect in this regard. But this idea that both parents working ten to twelve hour days and only seeing their kids, really, on the weekend doesn't exactly leave them with a lot of time to parent. And any discussion of this among the business minded folks inevitably leads to the "make a choice" discussion. "Family or work" is a bad choice for anyone to have to make. Especially if the kids are already present.

            • I'd love to see some stats on changing percentages of populations that have been able to afford to raise a family on one person's income. Was there ever a golden era or was that something sold to us in the media but only available to a minority in reality? Genuine questions, BTW.

              • Talking with older relatives, it was pretty rare for both parents to go out to work in one branch of the family, pretty common in the other branch, though one parent was full-time and the other was part-time only after the kids made it into school.

                I think another thing that would be interesting, and there's no polite way to have that conversation with others without somebody thinking you're a prying ass, would be how much of that "second person working" has been and is about making more than needed for adde

          • Re:what ever happened (Score:4, Informative)

            by JudgeFurious ( 455868 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @03:30PM (#63217310)

            In the 70's my father went to work and my mother stayed home to take care of the house, meals, shopping, and raise my brother and I. One income and dad worked in construction so it's not like it was a great big income either.

            • It's funny, Elizabeth Warren and her daughter wrote a book that argued it was the Women's Lib movement that made it so difficult to support a family on one income.

          • In what era do you believe that parents typically had enough free time to bring up their kids right? Pre-industrial revolution perhaps?

            When mothers stayed at home and took the primary jobs of feeding and caring for kids, while the father, who typically worked 8 hours, took an executive role.

            This was the case for most people as recently as the 70's. It's not a far away fairy tale. Many of us grew up this way.

            There's a lot of talk about "needing" two incomes, but the fact is that most people need two incomes because most people spend enough to require at least two jobs. Look at the typical houses of the 40's, 50's, and early 60's. They were

          • Yes!!! When most of us were farming, the kids were standing right next to us in the field. FARMING!!! That's how roughly 98% of all humans existed before the industrial revolution.

            • Yep. As I understand it, that was for a relatively short working day. So the parents would've had lots of time to do responsible parenting then.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          So your soultion to policy that has left parents without the resources to parent, is adopt more policy that denies them any tools.

          Why do you want to hurt children, they are hurting enough. Out society is sickeningly anti-child at this point.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tragedy ( 27079 )

          I dunno, there was a time, say in the fifties and sixties, where single parents going out to work a desk or factory job could keep a house afloat so the other parent could be an actual parent

          It's kind of funny that people simultaneously believe that but if you asked them what a greaser is, of course they'll know. Somehow, they can balance in their mind a media-based image of the 50's and 60's as an idyllic time, while simultaneously having another image (also from the media) of the 50's in a time when just about everyone was in gangs who regularly got into mass knife fights. Maybe it's because tv and movies about it usually depict them through song and dance numbers? It is interesting that not

          • The viable solutions are always the same. "Stop saying/doing things I don't like." That last word may get swapped around for variations, but in the end that's the push. Having the added, "think of the children" thing on top of it is just a nice frosting of anger over the base message.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tragedy ( 27079 )

              The viable solutions are always the same. "Stop saying/doing things I don't like."

              Well, more or less, but I would not say those are really viable. Look at youtube, for example. They don't like people to say "kill" or "rape" so people just say "unalive" and "grape" so that it's completely obvious what they're talking about but it still happens. Even Slashdot has its very own lameness filter, which never seems to be able to stop offensive ASCII art. I'm not sure if it still stops you from even writing Nazi. If this comes through, I guess it lets you do that now.

              The point is that objective

              • The true solution is for people to start growing a brain-stem again. There's a lot of steps to that though, and they wouldn't be easy steps considering the mired mess we now find ourselves in. We created this vast information resource that's available to a larger number of people than have ever had access to such information in the past, but we aren't intelligent enough as a species to understand that with that much information at our fingertips, there may be requirements for access.

                • First, critical thinkin

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by tragedy ( 27079 )

                  Well, currently we're knee-deep in the Eternal September. If you're unfamiliar with that term, it's an adaptation of the idea of the "September Revolution" which would happen each year as new college freshmen got onto the Internet and especially usenet. Most of them had never used the Internet before, but took to it relatively easily, but had little idea of netiquette (which seems like a bit of a quaint concept now). The idea was that they would mostly conform to proper behavior by the next September. The E

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Mysterious evil forces purposely destroying the family unit? Boring.

        You wack jobs usually have something more entertaining for me.

        • Nothing mysterious about the evil forces. here. Just regular old garden variety evil forces at work here.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            They're mysterious because the whole thing is made up. Their are no comic book super villains purposely destroying our social structures in real life.

            • Of course there aren't. The people doing that aren't trying to destroy our social structures intentionally. They're just trying to make a profit or "make something better" without regard to what effect it has on them. It's almost all inadvertent and always has been. These things aren't done because the people making them happen are evil. They're done because they just don't give a crap.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DarkOx ( 621550 )

              Right no super villains just a whole steaming pile of people with your attitudes and ideas.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by skam240 ( 789197 )

                Yes because myself and people like me are against families and somehow that doesnt sound like over the top nonsense to you. I get it though, you dont like change and so any change must be bad and instigated by bad people.

        • lol what does that have to do with my post?

      • That was the desired consequence of destroying the family unit.

        When did that happen?
        I just ask because I have these kids living in my house and I'd like to get rid of them because they're smelly and annoying. Is there some government department I call?
        Maybe I should just sell them for experiments.

    • UK ( and not only UK ) Politics happened.

      A politician will get votes for defending the poor dear kids against the evil tech bosses.
      He will lose votes for defending the tech bosses.

      Neither logic, justice nor a knowledge of how the internet functions come into it.
      • Not to mention the fact that politicians will lose votes for passing laws that make people responsible for the way they raise their children.

    • to holding parents responsible for their own kids?

      Whatever happened to parents having sufficient time to actually do that?

    • Re:what ever happened (Score:5, Informative)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @02:05PM (#63217024) Homepage Journal

      "For the children" is a magic button that bypasses all critical thinking and makes people say "yes" to whatever stupid thing a politician might propose. "Punish the rich" is another one.

      What makes sense doesn't matter. What is morally right really doesn't matter. What gets votes is all that matters.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        The funny thing is that "punish the rich" is only said by the Right as a means of demonizing the Left, no one on the Left says that. You are correct that the phrase does shut down thinking though.

        • Really?

          Because Left leaning politicians make a point of saying things like "make the rich pay their fair share" and "wealth tax". They make no bones about their hatred, yes, hatred of wealthy people. President Barak Obama even referred to voting as a form of revenge.

          Maybe the Europeans could give Americans progressives a clue - in Europe, capitalism is seen not as something bad, but as the means by which social programs are funded. If American Leftists could give up politics as a form of revenge and

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            Because Left leaning politicians make a point of saying things like "make the rich pay their fair share" and "wealth tax".

            Hahaha, what kind of nonsense is this? What's wrong with your brain that "make the rich pay their fair share" = "punish the rich"?

            I suppose you're making my point for me though, notice how your brain has completely shut off and you're equating things that have nothing to do with each other.

            Maybe the Europeans could give Americans progressives a clue - in Europe, capitalism is seen not as something bad, but as the means by which social programs are funded. If American Leftists could give up politics as a form of revenge and instead work for practical solutions to the problems, we could have nice things. When it comes to winning elections, the Republicans don't need a plan, because the Democrats don't have a clue.

            Oh good lord, you know nothing of Europe, claim Democrats are doing what key Republicans have literally been saying that they are doing https://www.tevitroy.org/8245/... [tevitroy.org] https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com] then out of nowh

            • Apparently they don't need a platform. Democrats run on not being Trump. That's your entire platform. I'm not Trump, vote for me.

              I guess that's better then having no platform at all, but really it just leaves us with a really sad state of affairs with everyone that isn't a politicians or rich person worse for wear.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by GFS666 ( 6452674 )

            Really?

            Because Left leaning politicians make a point of saying things like "make the rich pay their fair share" and "wealth tax". They make no bones about their hatred, yes, hatred of wealthy people. President Barak Obama even referred to voting as a form of revenge.

            My apologies, but even if you are correct about Democrats hating wealthy people, that does NOT mitigate their correct point that the Rich in America do not pay their fair share of taxes. This point comes from none other than Warren Buffet who noted that his secretary paid more percentage wise in taxes than he did.

            Maybe the Europeans could give Americans progressives a clue - in Europe, capitalism is seen not as something bad, but as the means by which social programs are funded. If American Leftists could give up politics as a form of revenge and instead work for practical solutions to the problems, we could have nice things. When it comes to winning elections, the Republicans don't need a plan, because the Democrats don't have a clue.

            Again, my apologies, but Democrats have more of a clue than Republicans right now. Republicans have zero plans other than their mantra of "let the market do it" and "taxes are too high". Please rem

            • If the Democrats were so concerned about a fair and balanced tax code, why didn't they do something about it in the last two years? They had the tie breaker vote and everything.

              I don't think the Dems really cared about the tax code or else they would of done something about it. Instead, they were to busy trying to pass out money to difference groups in hopes those people would show up and vote.

              It sort of worked as the red wave never really took off but it wasn't enough to keep the house.

              So really, it seems

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      In Europe it's not a binary. Parents have responsibility, companies marketing products to children have a responsibility.

      I'd point out that the parents are in fact being responsible here by demanding laws that protect their children. Okay, they don't really work, but that's a competence issue, it's not that they aren't taking responsibility at all.

  • For the clicks (Score:3)

    by DarkRookie2 ( 5551422 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @12:58PM (#63216790)
    This reads like the politician want clicks to their various causes. I really don't see how this is going to prevent anything but Google and the rest of Big Tech becoming stronger than they already are. They are really the only ones that can handle this. I can easily see a politician abusing this for votes more than I ever see this protecting a child.

    • The company receives evidence of illegal material on their site and is required to remove it within 24 hours. Is that so hard to administer? And, I believe, it only applies to sites that offer some degree of moderation by the owners - thus Facebook is covered, but Slashdot is not.

      • Re:Not so hard to do (Score:5, Informative)

        by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @01:56PM (#63216986) Homepage Journal

        The company receives evidence of illegal material on their site and is required to remove it within 24 hours. Is that so hard to administer?

        If they're also bombarded with trolls falsely reporting harmless posts, possibly quite hard.

        • and if the company has no operation in your domain and isn't illegal where it does operate?
          • I guess stay out of the UK, they may arrest you as you get off the plane.

    • Re:For the clicks (Score:4, Insightful)

      by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @02:34PM (#63217102)
      Sunak, et al. spent millions on that survey & focus group study (no doubt govt. money that went to Sunak, et al.'s cronies) to find those hot-button topics to put in their manifesto. What great click-bait it makes & what a great distraction it is from the Tories failing spectacularly at the most rudimentary government responsibilities. More Brexshit anyone?
      • You raise an excellent point. What happens when someone decides that voting Tory is self-harm and threatens to imprison people if they don't remove pro-Tory content?
    • If you've been paying attention to politics in the UK lately you'll note that this Sunak fellow is the guy who wanted to be the new Prime Minister all the way back in September last year.
      At the time, the conservative party decided that Liz Truss was a better candidate, despite it being obvious to everyone else that she was an idiot. (I believe the technical term is cockwomble).
      Yes, that Liz Truss.

      I know

      Anyway, after she broke everything the conservative party looked embarrassed and gave Mr. Sunak th

  • Let's see politicians thrown in jail for business-unfriendly practices that slow medical tech development, which will hurt many more kids than some unfriendly or eye-opening posts.

  • How enforcable will this be? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stonent1 ( 594886 ) <stonentNO@SPAMstonent.pointclark.net> on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @01:05PM (#63216804) Journal
    Most tech companies aren't in the UK. Some kid stumbles something on facebook, are the going to pick up Mark Zuckerberg and jail him in the UK?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Most tech companies aren't in the UK. Some kid stumbles something on facebook, are the going to pick up Mark Zuckerberg and jail him in the UK?

      One can only hope....

  • will they need to BAN VPN users? or just UK only ip's?
    and how meany sites will just EXIT the UK and say to due local laws we can't not offer this service in the UK.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      Brexit 2: the sequal?

    • The UK economy is quite big on a global scale, 6th largest. It would be like a tech company abandoning California.

      • They'll just move their operations out of the UK. At a time when they're already in dire financial straits, this will destroy UK jobs.

        • They'll just move their operations out of the UK. At a time when they're already in dire financial straits, this will destroy UK jobs.

          I've heard this a lot on and off over the years about various places. The UK, Europe, California etc. Turns out it's still generally worthwhile to have an office in a major area. Tech companies are used to working in repressive, autocratic regimes so I doubt this will be hard for them to figure out.

  • Enough said.

  • "If a breach of online safety duties is discovered, UK media regulator Ofcom would be responsible for prosecuting tech leaders who fail to respond to enforcement notices".

    And if Ofcom fails to do that, who will be responsible for prosecuting them? It would be a pity to break the chain.

    • "If a breach of online safety duties is discovered, UK media regulator Ofcom would be responsible for prosecuting tech leaders who fail to respond to enforcement notices".

      And if Ofcom fails to do that, who will be responsible for prosecuting them? It would be a pity to break the chain.

      Even better, of Ofcom goes after someone, costing them millions to defend themselves and risking permanent damage to their public reputation for being accused of a crime, and Ofcom loses the case, will Ofcom be held responsible for their overzealous prosecution and making the accused whole again?

      I'm not holding my breath. A law such as this gives Ofcom (another) gun they can point at the head of anyone they choose knowing they never have to pay for any mistakes made along the way. The mere threat of Ofcom

  • Existing tech companies would leave. New companies would not start there. New and existing companies that have nothing to do with kids online now know that future policies will put execs in jail so they will leave. I am all for throwing execs in jail if they knowingly do something illegal, but something like protecting kids online is too vague to take any risks.

  • To clarify what happened (Score:4, Insightful)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @01:47PM (#63216956)
    A depressed young girl committed suicide.
    She had been on the internet and seen stuff about suicide.
    So it's the tech bosses of the internet's fault she died.
    And they must be punished for that.

    No-one else will be punished, and certainly not the feminazi media that teach young girls to feel second-class and to hate half of mankind.

  • Jail time for wage theft too please! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Moof123 ( 1292134 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @02:35PM (#63217106)

    Steal from you employer: Jail time, .
    Employer steals from hundreds of workers: Slap on wrist, maybe pay a fine years later after employing every delay tactic possible.

    Maybe we need more of this trend to hold execs criminally responsible for their decisions instead of just hurting shareholders who foot the bill for large fines.

    • Steal from you employer: Jail time, .
      Employer steals from hundreds of workers: Slap on wrist, maybe pay a fine years later after employing every delay tactic possible.

      Maybe we need more of this trend to hold execs criminally responsible for their decisions instead of just hurting shareholders who foot the bill for large fines.

      This isn't a bad idea. The problem is the UK doesn't have a government that will do it properly. Matter of fact it's arguable that they should be the first target of such legislation.

    • ... hurting shareholders ...

      Translation: We can't punish the shareholders, we need them to use their wealth to get wealthier.

      Yeah, it's tough they trusted the wrong guy but it's their job to ensure they're getting the facts and they knew about the "corporate veil" before throwing their money around. It's not the job of the government to protect the rich from bad decisions. That road leads to protected billionaires, protected cops, protected women and thus, a de facto caste system.

  • The same class of people that let mass imported foreigners organize rape gangs of children until it became too big of an issue to sweep under the rug, want legislation to define online "harm content" necessitating censorship under penalty of law.

  • The cry of evil-doers everywhere

  • Presumably tech leaders will delegate the jail time to a subordinate :-/

    • No one will go to jail. The companies this is probably targeting are US based (even if there's a UK subsidiary), and there's no chance of extraditing a CEO from US.

  • This will allow for all kinds of cruel and unusual punishments!

  • ... child abuse, eating disorders, and self-harm.

    It's great that undressed people don't have to be censored, although I worry that may change. But this bill is protecting children from adults, what children can say to each other online is not a government's problem. In a sense, true, because it's the job of Facebook, Twitter, etc to set rules and punish bad behaviour. We need a bill that punishes Facebook, Twitter, etc for failing to to enforce their own rules on repeat offenders.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close