Safety Harm Bill

This isn’t just about safety.

We all want safer internet spaces. But some proposals risk scanning private messages, collecting more ID data, and squeezing smaller sites.

Private messages could be scanned.

“Client‑side scanning” would break end‑to‑end encryption by checking messages before they’re sent. Once a door exists, others can open it.

third‑party data lake

Age checks = more ID data in more places.

Third‑party “age assurance” means sensitive info flows through vendors. More copies. Bigger breach risk. Privacy‑preserving options exist—but must be the default.

Hobby Blog
markdowncommentsrss
COMPLY
Blocks UK visitors
Community Forum
threadsdmsmods
COMPLY
Closes sign‑ups
Niche Tool
apiuploadsprofiles
COMPLY
Removes features

Big‑tech‑sized rules crush small platforms.

Many indie services can’t afford enterprise compliance. Result: UK blocks, shutdowns, or features stripped away—less choice, less competition.

Whistleblowing tip about a corrupt contractor…
JournalistsSurvivorsActivists

Automation over‑removes. People get silenced.

Filters make mistakes. Appeals take time. The most vulnerable can lose their voice when nuance gets auto‑flagged.

Scope Creep
Today → Tomorrow
Private ChatsEverything

Once scanning exists, mandates expand.

Tools built for one purpose tend to spread. Guardrails matter. Transparency matters. Scope must stay narrow—and provably so.

This is fixable.

Demand privacy‑preserving age checks, no client‑side scanning, and proportionate rules for small services.

Speed
Static version

What the law does

Why critics worry

Age checks 101

Tip: prefer methods that prove “over/under” without revealing identity.