Wikipedia Tells UK Government It Won’t Comply With Proposed Age Verification Mandates
from the satisfy-your-personal-data-bloodlust-elsewhere dept
The UK government still hopes to bend the internet to its will, but it’s constantly finding out it won’t be as easy as just declaring a bunch of stuff illegal. Tech companies from all over the world would be affected by its “Online Safety Bill” (originally more proactively titled the “Online Harms Bill“). Negatively affected.
The push continues to outlaw things like end-to-end encryption, expand the government’s power to directly regulate internet communications, and otherwise make everyone more miserable (and less safe, ironically).
The usual suspects have been cited in support of ruining the internet: hate speech, CSAM, etc. While the proposed measures might have some immediately noticeable effect, those effects will likely be limited to showboat-y, ineffectual fining of non-compliant tech companies, perhaps with a few threats of prosecution thrown into the mix.
Notably, the bill targets tech companies, rather than those engaging in the activities the UK government wants to see eradicated. Tech companies are pushing back, though. Some of the biggest providers of encrypted communication services have already told the UK government they’ll exit the British market, rather than make their offerings less secure.
It’s not just encryption being targeted by the UK government. The government is also demanding service providers collect and retain more information about their users, supposedly to ensure the proverbial children aren’t exposed to content above their pay age grade.
Here’s where Wikipedia, via the Wikimedia Foundation, steps in and gives the UK government the extended two-finger salute (one better than America!), as Chris Vallance and Tom Gerken report for the BBC:
Wikipedia will not comply with any age checks required under the Online Safety Bill, its foundation says.
Rebecca MacKinnon, of the Wikimedia Foundation, which supports the website, says it would “violate our commitment to collect minimal data about readers and contributors”.
UK government officials have decided the Wikimedia Foundation (specifically, its Wikimedia) places children in harm’s way by hosting content that is either (1) actually pornographic (people stash porn at Wikimedia) or (2) sufficiently descriptive of sexual acts to be considered pornography (even if said descriptions are meant to educate, rather than titillate).
Consequently, Wikimedia/Wikipedia would be required to verify UK users’ ages, something it has never done anywhere in the world. In response to this new demand — one that would require Wikimedia to gather more information about its users than it currently does — the Foundation has flatly stated it won’t be invading its users’ privacy just to satisfy the UK government’s bizarre desire to turn the internet into vast repository of user info it can dip into whenever it feels it needs to.
Even if Wikimedia was inclined to comply with this ridiculous mandate, there’s likely no way it could feasibly comply with it. The logistical demands verge on impossibility.
There are currently 6.6 million articles on Wikipedia, and she said it was “impossible to imagine” how it would cope with checking content to comply with the bill.
She added: “Worldwide there are two edits per second across Wikipedia’s 300-plus languages.”
The online, user-generated encyclopedia does have its supporters in the UK legislature. As the BBC reports, some are arguing for an exemption that would allow sites like Wikipedia to bypass age verification since it relies on community moderation, rather than its own employees or algorithms. But others in Parliament, as well as the entities pushing for a more restrictive internet, claim adding exemptions will just encourage services like Wikimedia to perform less moderation, rather than more.
Those people are wrong. Mandates won’t force the internet to behave the way UK politicians would prefer it behaves. Instead, it will mean their constituents will lose access to services they currently use, be denied access to others, and allow child abusers and bigots to sink even further below the radar where they’re still capable of doing harm but far less likely to be detected.
Filed Under: age verification, online safety bill, uk
Companies: wikimedia
Techdirt is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to 



Comments on “Wikipedia Tells UK Government It Won’t Comply With Proposed Age Verification Mandates”
Good on them
None of their offices or servers are in Britain, so they are not subject to British law
Just like wen sites outside of the United sates do not have to comply with Utah’s age verification law. If they are not in America, they are not subject to ant US laws
Re:
Tell that to the Predator drone circling your house.
Re: Re:
For any kind of drone its video can be jammed.
if someone wants to watch porn they ,ll search xx videos, or Some adult website, wikipedia is a community online encylopedia just because a educational website mentions sex for instance the history of lgbt and the fight for gay rights does not mean it should be treated like a website whose purpose is to display erotic adult content or videos
It Should be exempted from this bill for the reason its an educational online service that is used by a global audience
it would be a shame if uk users lose acess to such a valuable service that provides free content on science history and current affairs that is constantly updated .
Re: almost right
I have only one problem with this… define ‘educational online service’ in a way that actually works, and actually manages to differentiate between those smutty sites you don’t want little Johnny seeing, and the ones that’ll teach him how to understand what a period is. (not that I expect there to be a great deal of useful material on PornHub on the latter subject, but you never know)
Re: Re:
Pornhub is educational, it taught me about:
I found all those videos highly educational.
(*) not really, no
Re: Re:
If little Johnny’s parents have opinions about what little Johnny looks at online, maybe they should discuss them with little Johnny rather than running to Nanny State.
Re: Re: Re:
If they’re aware of what Johnny is actually looking at online, that already places them above 95% of parents, either now or pre-internet (my parents didn’t know what I was reading/watching either half the time, and that’s when I had to physically hold a copy in my hands).
Re:
If Wikipedia is forced to block the UK, someone in the UK could use Tor, Proxy, or VPN to bypass that.
And it does not break US laws to this, so users in the UK could not be charged under Us laws, and that includes the DMCA.
The anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA do not apply to the end user.
In order to be charged with a felony under the law, you have to be doing it for financial gain, meaning making money.
That is why, for example, I am breaking no laws when I go on road trips to Mexico or Canada, and use my own VPN on my home computer to bypass geofencing to listen to my iHeart and YouTube playlists on my phone while driving.
As an end user, I am not committing any crime, under the CMCA, because I am doing it for my own personal use, and not doing to make money.
And there is no law in Mexico, Canada, or Alaska against that either. In short, I am not committing any crime, anywhere in North America when I do that in my car while on road trips because I am not doing it for any kind of profit.
Re: Re:
Okay, VPN pointdexter.
But if visiting wikipedia is a fucking crime in the UK, your precious VPN isn’t gonna help you, even if they don’t keep records to comply with, let’s say, Swedish law.
If they’re clever, they’ll force wikipedia to comply using Interpol to monitor the site for specific users.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a loadbearing hypothetical
Re: Re: Re:
I use Tor on top of VPN to avoid being traced in f needed
I have almost certainly made posts here that would attract the attention of the Feds
Since I use VPN and Tor combined there is no way my posts here can be traced
There are three Tor nodes plus the VPN meervice itself
And also you don’t have to register to read Wikipedia articles so telling Wikipedia to watch for a specific user would not work
And there are also numerous software programs to totally wipe the hard disk clean so no evidence can be recovered
Britain dies not have a sarbanes oxkwy law so you could not be prosecutoled in Britain fir doing that
Even if they did the programs have been so.improved that any proof that you did erase your hard disk would not be there after you reinstalled the is and all your prigrams
Re: Re: Re:
When I travel to England I will have to use my own private VPN on my home computer when I go
There is one fight on one future ufc card I would like to see and if it should be at the o2 arens London I will use the VPN in my own home to avoid any geo fencing while I am there.
And do not get me started on the DMCA. The felony statures do not apply to the end user because of the requirement that it be for financial gain, meaning making money.
Bypassing geofemcing does not rise to that level for the end user as it is not for financial gain.
Re: Re: Re:
The issue is that jurisdiction requires you to either have a physical presence in that country/state or to intentionally provide goods or services to that country/state or have otherwise acted within that country/state. Geoblocking the country or state necessarily means that you are not knowingly providing service to users in that country/state because you are taking steps to avoid doing so.
Because of this, that VPNs can be used to circumvent geoblocks is entirely irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction, meaning that, regarding Wikipedia’s legal duties and the UK’s jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter if the UK declared Wikipedia illegal and people within the UK used VPNs to circumvent geoblocks, nor would Interpol monitoring the site for certain individuals change anything. Wikipedia simply isn’t subject to laws of a state or country it has no physical presence in and which has been geoblocked by the site.
Plus, any attempt to enforce a judgment against Wikipedia would have to be enforced by US courts, and they are unlikely to do so.
Re: Re:
Yet.
The whole demonization of the way everyone got here in the first place is pretty ironic. Let’s carry it a bit further. Those idiots should be ashamed they even exist.
Re:
They are. And they are taking it out on everyone else.
“Even if Wikimedia was inclined to comply with this ridiculous mandate, there’s likely no way it could feasibly comply with it.”
Well, they could just nerd harder, now couldn’t they?
The sad thing is that it’s not just the governing party being imbeciles on this stupidity, the largest opposition (and likely next government) is nowhere to be seen in opposition to the bill, with several of their MPs actually supporting it. There is simply no respite from government stupidity in the UK no matter who is in government
BOL
Brittania online – access via CD only
Re:
Brittania send me a pack of cd’s in the 1990’s for free. It was almost pretty cool, but then I’d click a link in an article and be prompted to insert disc 6 or whatever and have to wait 40 seconds or more for it to load. Everyone I showed it to said “Wow, that’s neat. Oh, wait, no it’s not”.
This is another one of those “It’s your job to coerce your population if that’s what you want, not ours” deals. And see how long they keep their jobs, then.
Re:
Based on recent history, I’d estimate 10 to 20 years, on average.
Re: Re:
Looks like we’re headed for roughly the same amount of time the Tories were in power last time. They were on the same hypocritical moral crusades while strip-mining everything important last time too.
They don’t want to protect kids from porn, they want to ensure that the only source of information they (or any of us have) is government vetted content, and if anyone says anything that doesn’t chime to their particular worldview must be crushed out of existence.
Hmm, where have I seen that before…
Re:
Florida, yesterday.
Re:
China, India and Southeast Asia, since 1945 at earliest.
and if wikileaks wont, under threat of being taken out of the UK, how many other companies will follow suit? surely it is realised by now that all that is happening is to have total control of the internet with complete knowledge of all individuals under UK jurisdiction, EXCEPT THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY NEED WATCHING CONSTANTLY, the actuall thieves and villains and. of course, the very people the government wants to exclude, ie, themselves and and all friends and the already high earners, the ones who do the most harm to everyone except themselves!!
Really enjoying the irrelevant island nation trying to police the internet. Good luck to them!
There is a high likelihood that AV and most of the OSB will fall apart and never happen. Ofcom is going to hit the wall of reality very hard.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
f**k UK
english law does not applu on servers in the usa. and no one gives a flying pig of uk anyway. just ban all uk from accessing wikipedia. then, we ban all english newspapers and websites from search engines worldwide.
we will have tour prime minister f**k a pig live on television in order to be accepted back into our world.
and burn all the niggers.
Re:
Could we NOT resort to racial slurs?
Fucking Parisians, I swear…