‘Spy Clause’ Sparks Fierce Opposition from Tech Giants and Privacy Advocates
The controversial ‘spy clause,’ officially known as Clause 122 in the UK’s Online Safety Bill, initially empowered Ofcom to issue notices to messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Signal, known for their end-to-end encryption. These notices would have allowed for the deployment of scanning software, ostensibly to identify and combat child sex abuse images on these platforms. However, both WhatsApp and Signal vehemently opposed this, asserting that it would compromise the fundamental privacy safeguard of end-to-end encryption, a feature cherished by their users. Consequently, both companies threatened to withdraw their services from the UK if the Bill passed with this clause intact.
Privacy advocacy groups, including the Open Rights Group, echoed concerns, contending that mandating the scanning of private messages on such apps constituted an expansion of mass surveillance.
A Step Back
In a recent address to the House of Lords, junior arts and heritage minister Lord Stephen Parkinson made a significant announcement. He stated, “When deciding whether to issue a notice, Ofcom will work closely with the service to help identify reasonable, technically feasible solutions to address child sexual exploitation and abuse risk, including drawing on evidence from a skilled persons report. If appropriate technology which meets these requirements does not exist, Ofcom cannot require its use.”
In essence, the government has acknowledged that the technology required for scanning messages without compromising encryption is currently unavailable. Consequently, under the amended version of the bill, WhatsApp and Signal will not be compelled to scan their messages until such technology becomes viable.
This represents a notable retreat for the government, which had been advocating for ‘back doors’ and scanning of encrypted apps, especially after it was revealed that the London Bridge terror attack seemed to have involved planning through WhatsApp.
Victory for Signal and WhatsApp
Meredith Whittaker, President of Signal, took to social media to frame the government’s apparent reversal as “a victory, not a defeat” for tech companies. However, she also acknowledged that it fell short of a complete win, stating, “we would have loved to see this in the text of the law itself.”
Similarly, Will Cathcart, Head of WhatsApp, emphasized the company’s commitment to safeguarding end-to-end encryption, noting that “scanning everyone’s messages would destroy privacy as we know it. That was as true last year as it is today.”
A Complex Situation
In the wake of the government’s retreat on the ‘spy clause,’ privacy advocates like the Open Rights Group (ORG) drew attention to the confusion surrounding the matter. On one hand, the government conceded the unavailability of the necessary scanning technology, while on the other hand, some officials seemed to suggest that no concession had been made. ORG referred to this as an “omnishambles” and pointed out how Michelle Donelan MP had stated during a Times radio appearance that “We haven’t changed the bill at all” and that “further work to develop the technology was needed.”
Implications for Businesses
For apps like WhatsApp and Signal, this development represents not only a triumph against government pressure but also positive news for their business operations in the UK, as they can continue to provide their services without interference.
Additionally, this is a relief for numerous UK businesses that rely on WhatsApp for their day-to-day communications. They can rest assured, at least for the time being, that their commercially and personally sensitive messages won’t be subject to scanning, reducing potential privacy and security risks, and minimizing the threat of hacks and data breaches. It is evident that the UK government has been compelled to acknowledge the current absence of technology capable of scanning messages on end-to-end encrypted services while preserving the integrity of this encryption. The victory for these encrypted apps is thus particularly gratifying, given the likely lengthy timeline for the development of such technology. The government’s retreat on ‘clause 122,’ the ‘spy clause,’ has also been met with celebration by privacy groups that have long opposed it on the grounds of enabling mass surveillance.
