Internet Society condemns UK's Online Safety Bill for demonising encryption using 'think of the children' tactic

Plus: Cops' surveillance is used against drug gangs and not child abusers, says Tutanota

Britain's controversial Online Safety Bill will leave Britons more exposed to internet harms than ever before, the Internet Society has said, while data from other countries suggests surveillance mostly isn't used to target child abusers online, despite this being a key cited rationale of linked measures.

Government efforts to depict end-to-end encryption as a harm that needs to be designed out of the internet as it exists today will result in "fraud and online harm" increasing, the Internet Society said this week.

Founded by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, the Internet Society is one of the oldest and most well-respected institutions guiding the path of the public internet today. Its cry against the draconian Online Safety Bill (aka Online Harms Bill) should cause policymakers to sit up and pay attention.

Robin Wilton, the society's director of internet trust, said in a statement: "Today, encryption is an essential component of digitally connected objects like cars, doorbells, home security cameras and even children's toys, otherwise known as the 'Internet of Things' (IoT). It's also essential for national security by protecting highly sensitive systems like the power grid, citizen databases, and financial institutions such as the stock market."

Government has been explicit about wanting to ban end-to-end encryption, co-opting willing and eager police forces into a public campaign demonising the safety and security technology.

The Internet Society's Wilton rubbished these calls, saying: "Despite having access to the world's leading cryptographic expertise, the government has been unable to suggest a credible, safe back door that meets their requirements because it does not exist. Instead, the government is trying to make companies design insecurity in by default."

Quoting government publicity around the Online Harms Bill, he added: "That is not the way to 'harness the benefits of a free, open and secure internet', it's a recipe for fraud and online harm."

"It prevents spies, terrorists and hostile governments from accessing and exploiting confidential communications of government officials, and protects highly sensitive systems intrinsically tied to national security, including the power grid, databases, and financial institutions, from being hacked," he concluded.

Who is govt truly most keen on surveilling? Drug dealers

Meanwhile, more figures emerged tending to show that online surveillance tends to be used by Western governments against drugs gangs rather than child abusers, despite the Online Safety Bill and police campaigns claiming end-to-end encryption (E2EE) will turn social media into a paedophiles' paradise.

Encrypted email firm Tutanota, headquartered in Germany, published research this week suggesting surveillance orders are deployed to target drugs offenders first and foremost.

"Most orders issued to telecommunications providers are in connection with drug offences," Tutanota told The Register. Looking at published data, the company said about 80 per cent of wire-tapping orders granted in the US, one of the more heavily surveilled Western countries, were for drug-related crimes.

"In recent years, child sexual abuse and child pornography have played only a marginal role in telecommunications surveillance in practice," blogged Tutanota founder Matthias Pfau.

The same held true in Germany, where a specifically broken-out category of warrants granted for child abuse image offences made up just 0.2 per cent of surveillance applications for 2019 – having remained at that insignificant level for 10 years.

In snoop-happy Australia the situation was only slightly different, with warrants granted under that country's Telecommunications Interception Access Act 1979 being 50 per cent focused on drugs: in 2020 surveillance against child abuse imagery offenders made up just 0.4 per cent of applications, said Tutanota.

"The UK Home Office unfortunately does not provide figures on this," added Pfau, but there is little reason to assume the UK is much different from its sister democracies.

The Online Harms Bill continues its Parliamentary journey. ®