UK’: The Online Safety Act concern
The Online Safety Act: Protection or Surveillance? Growing Concerns Over Free Speech in the UK
By Alpaslan Düven/London
The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, originally presented as a framework to make the internet safer—especially for children—has ignited intense debate over the future of digital freedom, free speech, and privacy rights. While the government insists it is about protecting vulnerable users from harmful content, critics argue the legislation hands unprecedented surveillance and censorship powers to the state and its appointed regulator, Ofcom.
This article examines the concerns growing around the Online Safety Act and why many believe it’s a step toward a surveillance state.
What Is the Online Safety Act?
The Online Safety Act is a sweeping law passed in the UK that gives Ofcom, the media regulator, new authority over online content. The stated goal is to combat online abuse, protect children from harmful content, and hold tech companies accountable.
But under the surface, privacy experts, civil liberties organizations, and free speech advocates argue the law may do far more harm than good.
What the Government Can Now Do
1. Scan Private Messages
The Act opens the door for Ofcom to compel platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage, and others to scan encrypted messages for “harmful content”—even in private conversations. This undermines end-to-end encryption, a critical technology that protects online privacy from hackers, corporations, and governments alike.
2. Censor Protest Videos and Dissenting Voices
With platforms like X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and Facebook under legal obligation to remove “harmful” content, critics fear this includes protest footage, political dissent, or unpopular opinions. What’s harmful is loosely defined, and enforcement is often opaque.
3. Mandate ID Checks and Facial Scans
To enforce age verification, the government can require platforms to implement facial recognition, ID scans, or tie social media accounts to verified identities. This shift from anonymous use to trackable digital identities raises huge concerns about surveillance and discrimination.
4. Access Cloud Storage Without a Warrant
Documents stored in Google Drive, iCloud, Dropbox, and OneDrive could be subject to inspection or scanning for flagged material. Privacy advocates warn this erodes expectations of digital confidentiality, even without criminal suspicion.
5. Expand Warrantless Surveillance
The Act empowers authorities to demand data access from tech companies without needing a warrant. This bypasses traditional legal checks, leaving the door open for abuse and overreach.
A Threat to Encryption
One of the most alarming aspects of the Act is its targeting of encryption. In practice, forcing tech companies to scan for content before it’s encrypted—known as “client-side scanning”—means creating backdoors in secure apps. These vulnerabilities can be exploited not just by governments, but by cybercriminals.
Several major platforms, including WhatsApp, Signal, and Apple, have warned they may be forced to shut down services in the UK rather than comply with such requirements.
Conditioning the Public?
Digital rights activists argue the legislation is laying the groundwork for a broader system of control. They warn that:
Social media censorship is just the beginning.
Future policies may link digital identity with political views, banking access, and social behavior.
Non-compliance could mean deplatforming or exclusion from digital services.
This represents a radical shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state.
VPNs on the Rise
With fears of surveillance mounting, VPN (Virtual Private Network) use is skyrocketing in the UK. VPNs encrypt internet traffic and mask users’ locations, helping to preserve freedom of expression and access to uncensored information.
Popular services like NordVPN and ExpressVPN have reported record demand as citizens seek to shield themselves from tracking and censorship.
The Slippery Slope
Although the Online Safety Act was introduced under the pretense of protecting children and ensuring accountability online, its implementation may mark a turning point in civil liberties.
Who defines what is “harmful”?
Who watches the watchers?
And what mechanisms exist to prevent abuse?
Critics argue that if such powers exist, they will be used—and likely expanded.
Conclusion
The UK’s Online Safety Act reflects a growing global trend: using safety as a rationale for surveillance. While protecting children and vulnerable groups is a noble goal, sacrificing fundamental rights in the process may do more harm than good in the long run.
It’s now more important than ever for citizens, journalists, legal experts, and human rights advocates to hold the government accountable, defend encryption, and protect the open internet.
Because once free speech is lost, getting it back is far harder than keeping it.