Wikipedia can challenge Online Safety Act if strictest rules apply to it, says judge
The Wikimedia Foundation has said it will be forced to reduce how many people can access the site in order to comply with the regulations if it is classified as a category 1 provider by Ofcom later this summer.
As a non-profit, the site said, it 'would face huge challenges to meet the large technological and staffing needs' required to comply with the duties, which include user-verification requirements, stringent protections for users and regular reporting responsibilities to prevent the spread of harmful content.
The Wikimedia Foundation calculated that the number of people in the UK who access Wikipedia would have to be reduced by about three-quarters in order for the site to not qualify as a category 1 service, which is defined as a large user-to-user platform that uses algorithmic contender recommendations.
It said Wikipedia was different to other sites expected to be labelled category 1 providers such as Facebook, X and Instagram because it was run by a charity and its users typically only encountered content that they sought out.
Justice Johnson refused Wikipedia's legal challenge in the high court on several grounds, but he noted that the site 'provides significant value for freedom of speech and expression' and added that the outcome did not give Ofcom or the government 'a green light to implement a regime that would significantly impede Wikipedia's operations'.
Any decision to make Wikipedia a category 1 provider would have to be 'justified as proportionate if it were not to amount to a breach of the right to freedom of expression', he said, but added that it would be 'premature' to rule on this since Ofcom had not yet determined that Wikipedia was a category 1 service.
If Ofcom determines that Wikipedia is a category 1 service and this means Wikipedia is unable to operate as at present, Johnson suggested that the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, should 'consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the act' and said that Wikipedia could bring a further challenge if he did not.
Phil Bradley-Schmieg, the lead counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, said: 'While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the court's ruling emphasised the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA [Online Safety Act] is implemented.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
'The judge recognised the 'significant value' of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly assigned OSA categorisations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors.'
Cecilia Ivimy KC, for the government, said ministers reviewed Ofcom guidance and considered specifically whether Wikipedia should be exempt from the regulations and rejected that. She said they decided that Wikipedia 'is in principle an appropriate service on which to impose category 1 duties' and how ministers arrived at that choice was not 'without reasonable foundation nor irrational'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
27 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Could Labour ban VPNs after users dodge online protection laws?
Could Labour ban VPNs after users dodge online protection laws? Some internet users have raised concerns that stricter online safety laws could include VPNs in the future Some internet ueers are concerned their VPNs are under threat (Image: Getty Images) Since Labour introduced new age verifcation methods as part of the Online Safety Act, VPNs have seen an uptick in popularity. Virtual Private Networks help to obscure someone's IP address and can trick a website into thinking someone is connecting from another country. In practice, this allows users to dodge age verification checks from websites that require them under the new laws. However, with the government pushing the controversial rules on sites and emphasising its necessity in protecting children from harm online, many are concerned that this relatively easy way of skirting the checks could be banned. One concerned user on Reddit raised this question and asked whether the government could actually ban VPNs. Difficulties faced in banning VPNs User GenericUser104 wrote in the r/homelab subreddit:"I've recently started using a VPN again. I used one a while back to sail the seas, and now I'm using Proton to get around the Online Safety Act in the UK. Now there's talk of them banning VPNs too. Surely this isn't something they can do—and if it is, how would I put things in place so it won't affect me?" In response, another user highlighted how it would be technically very difficult for the government to implement a ban on VPNs due to their extensive use in business settings as well as person. User hk135 said: "VPN's are used extensively in the Corporate world for remote working, this is where they originated as a means to securely connect to the network at Work or interconnect various offices and sites. "Blanket banning VPN's is a non-starter for corporate reasons. Not just this but also depending on how you define a VPN, if it is encapsulating traffic in an encrypted tunnel, then SSL in general would be covered. Article continues below "What about encrypted connections to Proxy servers, that would redirect traffic as well. The logistics of banning VPNs or even anything that hides (intentional or not) the source IP address is unworkable, it would make any kind of security on the internet illegal." Overseas restrictions on VPNs However, some other users pointed out that other countries have already placed bans and restriction on using VPNs at home. For example, citizens in China are only allowed to use certain VPNs that have been approved by the government. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates also has strict laws against using VPNs to access restricted content. Certain forms of restricted content can include calling services like WhatsApp. Similarly, user theantnest claimed: "As somebody who lived and worked in Dubai for a number of years, I can tell you that banning VPNs is totally possible. In the UAE every VPN website is blocked, it just won't load. And then they use deep packet inspection to detect VPN use and then throttle the traffic. "This even works on private VPNs like shoving a raspberry Pi running OpenVPN onto the network at your grandmothers house. The one caveat is that the UAE only has 2 ISPs that are both government owned. For it to work in the UK they would need to legislate that all ISPs must block VPN traffic by law." Does the government plan on banning VPNs? While concerns are being raised over a potential ban on VPNs, there is currently no indication from the government or other official bodies of this being put in place. In fact, the Science Secretary Peter Kyle told Sky News last month that he acknowledged VPN use was on the rise but stressed "the vast majority of adults" in the UK were following the rules. At the time, he said no plans were in place to ban VPNs, but added that he was looking "very closely" at how they are being used. He noted that "very few children" were actively looking for harmful content online and that the issue surrounding the law was that "harmful content comes and finds them". Melanie Dawes, the head of Ofcom, told MPs in May that people would use VPNs to get around the restrictions. 'A very concerted 17-year-old who really wants to use a VPN to access a site they shouldn't may well be able to,' she said. 'Individual users can use VPNs. Nothing in the Act blocks it. Furthermore, a spokesperson for the Age Verification Providers Association said that good quality VPNs provide a more secure way to connect to the internet. They added that AVPF does not support a ban on VPNs. Article continues below On its own website AVPF highlighted that digital services that want to remain compliant with the rules could detect VPN use, asses risk through behavioural cues, and flag users the option to verify their age or prove their location. A Government spokesperson said: "The Online Safety Act places no curbs whatsoever on what adults can say, see or access on the internet, unless it is something that would already be illegal, offline. "However, we make no apology for holding platforms to account, to ensure they take steps to prevent children from bypassing safety protections. This includes not encouraging content that promotes VPNs or other workarounds, when they are aimed specifically aimed at young users. More broadly, there are a range of legitimate reasons why users might use VPNs which do not cut across children's safety online."
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Kate Middleton and Prince William to move into new eight-bedroom home worth £16 million
The Prince and Princess of Wales are to move into a new home in Windsor. William and Kate are moving to eight-bedroom Forest Lodge in Windsor Great Park, with their children George, Charlotte and Louis. A Kensington Palace spokesperson said: 'The Wales family will move house later this year.' According to The Sun, the royal couple are paying for the property and renovations themselves, avoiding any extra cost to the taxpayer. The paper reported that work has already started on minor renovation at the Grade II-listed property. The move will be a short one from their current main home at Adelaide Cottage in Windsor, and the children attend nearby Lambrook School. They also have homes at Anmer Hall in Norfolk and Apartment 1A in Kensington Palace in London. As heir to the throne, William inherited the Duchy of Cornwall estate, a portfolio of land, property and investments valued at more than £1 billion, when his father became King. According to The Sun, Forest Lodge would be worth about £16 million on the open market. The freehold is owned by the King.
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
London West End al fresco dining pilot start date is 'too late'
A new al fresco dining scheme is expected to begin in London's West End on Friday but some businesses have questioned its Sadiq Khan's Summer Streets Fund, news of which was first announced in May, will support new outdoor dining spaces to open up in four locations across the capital.A date had not been given for its introduction to St Martin's Lane, but the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has spoken with several restaurants and cafés there, all of whom said their licences become operational on 22 August until the end of scheme, which is backed by £300,000 from City Hall, has already funded al fresco dining in locations in Leyton, Shoreditch and Brixton. The mayor's press team was approached for comment though did not confirm the launch date. An officer instead referred the LDRS to the mayor's previous statements and press each location chosen to benefit from the Summer Streets Fund is to operate slightly differently, the overriding intention is to support the local hospitality industry and boost outdoor eating and the scheme was first announced, Sir Sadiq said: "We saw what a success it was during the pandemic, and I want to expand al fresco dining further in the years to come, all part of building a better London for everyone." 'Good for business' All of the businesses the LDRS spoke to on St Martin's Lane, which is receiving £50,000 of the £300,000 pot, said they were optimistic about the manager at Côte Brasserie, Natalia Prusik, said she was "excited" by the upcoming launch."[It would have been] much more exciting if it started in May, but we will take it as it comes. But it's really good for the business for sure," she Prusik said they are to have around 14 tables on the street and 28 Simonte, general manager at the Italian restaurant Fumo, echoed Ms Prusik's enthusiasm."It's been a number of years I have tried to get tables outside," he said. "We should have started earlier I believe. It's the end of August."Mr Simonte added he would like to see the scheme rolled out in future years and to make the most of the summer spots which confirmed they will be involved included The Real Greek, La Roche, Pizza Express and Browns. Once implemented, St Martin's Lane will be car-free from 11:00 to 23:00 with al fresco licences available for up to 34 businesses, City Hall had earlier said. A spokesperson for Westminster City Council, the local authority, said: "Westminster is home to a thriving al fresco dining scene, with over 900 licences for outdoor dining granted in the past six months alone."The St Martin's Lane initiative, in the heart of West End Theatre Land, is part of a broader programme to help visitors make the most of Westminster's world-class restaurants, bars, and cultural destinations this summer."The other locations to benefit from the scheme are Redchurch Street and Rivington Street in Shoreditch, Atlantic Road in Brixton and Francis Road in Forest has been allocated £50,000 of the fund, with Hackney and Lambeth getting £100,000 each.
