
New online safety rules are here but as tech races ahead, expect changes
Technological advances
"If it does what it says it does, it should be really big," said one Whitehall source, with high hopes of the change on the way.Ofcom will be responsible for enforcing new child safety rules which will require platforms to check users' ages. These take effect on 25 July - and Ofcom's chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, will join me live in the studio tomorrow morning to explain more.The regulator won't tell platforms exactly how to verify users' ages. But it could be sharing a selfie in real time, or checking bank details. Without proving they are 18, a child or teenager should theoretically not be able to see content that might do them harm.Ofcom's measures to make tech firms remove illegal content have already come into force. A senior Whitehall source said: "We have had 20 years with no attention being paid to safety." You can't say that now.But some observers take a very dim view of how much the new rules are going to change.One campaigner said: "If we believed the breathless PR, we could all take to our deckchairs and just enjoy the sun."Rightly or wrongly, the new rules don't cover what kids share with each other on messaging apps, and they don't block risky stunts or challenges or in-app purchases like loot boxes that end up costing some families a fortune.And as technology races ahead, the rules don't fully cover AI chatbots which are increasingly grabbing kids' attention.The Online Safety Act, which was passed in 2023, didn't tackle material that is harmful but legal for adults - not least because of an almighty row in the Conservative Party when they were in charge.Nor was it set up to tackle misinformation or hate, which MPs warned on Friday left serious holes in the new system designed to protect everyone.What the Online Safety Act is - and how to keep children safe online
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which investigated the law in the wake of the Southport riots, said internet users were being exposed to large volumes of harmful and misleading content "which can deceive, damage mental health, normalise extremist views, undermine democracy, and fuel violence".MPs in the committee concluded that the Act failed to keep UK citizens "safe from a core and pervasive online harm".Many safety campaigners think the rules simply don't go far enough and that Ofcom has been far too cautious. A former cabinet minister tells me: "I just don't understand their lack of pace or urgency."It took years to get the Online Safety Act passed as law in the first place. Parliament spent a long time grappling with real dilemmas - especially how to protect fundamental rights of free speech and privacy.Then Ofcom took many months to write the codes of practice that have come into force over time. They wanted to create rules that were practical for the tech platforms themselves.One industry source says Ofcom had been "sensible and grown-up", and while the rules weren't "revolutionary" they were important, positioning the UK between tighter regulations in the EU and a more lax regime in the US.However you look at it, these new laws have been a very, very long time coming. And while Whitehall has been grinding along, technology, and the kinds of experiences we all have online, has been racing ahead.Who had really heard of AI five years ago? Many sources I've spoken to question now if the way the whole system has been designed is the right one.The former minister I spoke to said it was a "category error" to regulate the internet in this way, questioning whether Ofcom was the right body to do the job.But ultimately, Ofcom can only work within the laws MPs set.
While we'll be focusing in the studio tomorrow on the effect the new rules will have, there is already an obvious demand among politicians to go further.Labour's education secretary branded the Tories' suggestion to ban phones in schools a "gimmick". The PM said it was "unnecessary". But the House of Lords might back the idea in votes in mid-autumn, pushing the question back to MPs.Might some newly emboldened Labour backbenchers be tempted to support it too? One of them told me if there were a reshuffle, and a new education secretary, "I'd be straight in there to say, ditch the battle, get on the right side of the public and parents, and agree to the Tories' proposal."But I understand there are new measures developed in government that might emerge even before then, shortly after the summer.With the age verification measures about to come into force, the cabinet minister in charge, Peter Kyle, wants to shift the conversation towards healthy habits. The Online Safety Act focuses on what we can see on the internet. But Kyle's next focus is on how we use it, considering how some apps could be addictive.A source said: "kids shouldn't have to be grateful they can't see violent porn on their devices… the next debate is about what is healthy online."
Ministers are considering how they could protect children from algorithms that "can make kids feel out of control", or drive compulsive behaviour. Proposals on the table include an "app cap", screen time limits, extra rules on live streams, and making more of a distinction between what 13 and 16-year-olds can do online.More legislation is likely to bring in the next round of changes, but right now, as one MP said: "it is stuck somewhere in the system."You can expect the next round of conversations about how governments can protect the public from the worst excesses of the internet while enjoying its incredible opportunities to be part of the political soundtrack of the autumn.Technology has changed so many aspects of our lives so fast for the better in recent years. But for too many families, their experiences online have brought terrible pain. Just as our heads might spin trying to understand all the changes, politicians have perhaps struggled to balance the dangers as well as the opportunities, and how they might be called on to protect the public.What happens online is not the usual turf of politics like making ends meet, running schools or hospitals. But just as our virtual lives are an increasing part of our world, they are becoming a bigger part of our political life too.
A list of organisations in the UK offering support and information with some of the issues in this story is available at BBC Action Line
Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Couple being held in Iran 'outrageous', MP says
The government has been urged to "act decisively" to secure the freedom of a British couple detained in Iran. Craig and Lindsay Foreman, both 52, were on a "once-in-a-lifetime" trip around the world when they were arrested by Iranian authorities in January and later charged with espionage - something the family a meeting of the all-parliamentary group for arbitrary detention and hostage affairs (APPG), the couple's son Joe Bennett told the BBC he wanted the UK government to be "really pressing" Iran for their immediate Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) says it continues to raise the case directly with the Iranian authorities. Mr Bennett said the meeting had reassured the family they had support, but he would still continue to pressure government to "make sure that what can be done is being done immediately".Iran's government has been approached for comment. 'Bargaining chips' Brendan O'Hara, APPG vice chair, told the BBC it was "absolutely outrageous" that Mr and Ms Foreman, who were just on holiday and have "no political connection", had been "taken hostage". The Scottish National Party MP called the couple from East Sussex "innocent victims of a geopolitical power struggle", likening them to "bargaining chips" between states. "The UK government has to act and it has to act decisively", O'Hara said, urging officials to do "everything they possibly can" to secure their freedom. He pointed to the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian national who was held hostage by the Iranian government for six years to pressure the UK to pay a long-standing, multi-million-pound debt. Haydee Dijkstal, a barrister representing the family, told the BBC there were concerns the human rights of the couple were not being fully protected in Iran. She said they had been held in solitary confinement for more than 30 days and did not know what they were being charged with for several months. Mr Bennett said he had not spoken to his parents for more than six months. The FCDO advises against all travel to Iran. "British and British-Iranian dual nationals are at significant risk of arrest, questioning or detention," it says in its Iran travel advice. "Having a British passport or connections to the UK can be reason enough for the Iranian authorities to detain you."


The Sun
33 minutes ago
- The Sun
Wills will NEVER forgive Harry for what he's done to Kate – pathetic ‘reconcile' attempt is just a PR stunt, expert says
A ROYAL expert has said that Prince William will never forgive his brother as the Duke of Sussex makes an attempt to reconcile with his family. It comes amid speculation about the Duke of Sussex, 40, reconciling with his father after senior aides to Harry and the King were snapped meeting in London. 7 The secret peace summit has sparked rumour that a reconciliation between Harry and his father is in the works but Prince William's aides were snubbed. At least three representatives from either side were seen speaking at the Royal Over-Seas League which sits just three minutes from Clarence House. It is unclear which side initiated the summit. A royal expert has now revealed that Harry and William coming to good terms again seems a far off prospect after the damage done to their relationship over the years. Speaking about the meeting between Harry and his father's aides royal expert Mr Hugo Vickers said he believed there's "always a hope for reconciliation... if both sides are prepared to talk". "I don't think it's all gone too far," he told The Sun. "It's always good to talk. Lots can come out of talking, and you know it could perhaps lead to something. "We don't know what they talked about or what their plans were. But that's a good sign." However, there have been subsequent reports of Harry and Meghan's alleged frustration that the meeting made headlines. A representative denied their team leaked details of the chat. Huge Prince Harry update as he arranges peace summit with King Charles 'within weeks' – but has no plans to meet William But Mr Vickers believed it wasn't by coincidence talks between Liam Maguire, Tobyn Andreae, and Meredith Maines were held on a visible balcony. "We have to ask ourselves, did some random figure pass by and say, 'oh, hello There's Tobyn Andreae talking to the Sussex team - take a photograph and sell it to the newspapers'. "That seems to me to be a bit far-fetched. I think it's first of all very odd to have a meeting on a balcony if it's meant to be private. "And so, secondly, it looks to me as though somebody leaked it, and the obvious people to do that would be the Sussex team. 7 7 7 "Having done that, of course it's also absolutely in keeping that they would then deny having done so. "I don't think it would be Buckingham Palace. I don't see what possible gain they would have out of leaking it. I don't think that they are particularly leakers where I'm afraid I think the Sussex team are." But if Harry and Meghan did want the press to get hold of these details, it brings to light questions surrounding motivation for the meeting in the first place. "Well, they always want to stay in the news, because they are celebrities now," said Mr Vicker. "They have to come up with a good news story and let's face it, If there's a thought of reconciliation, then this is a good story, because the relations between Prince Harry and his father and his brother particularly, have been very bad, which is sad. "We know that the King has stated. I mean even Prince Harry mentions that in his memoirs, that he didn't want his last years to be made miserable between with rows with his son between his sons." Despite hopes of a reunion between the King and his son Mr Vickers warns a cheery reunion with Will is a far less likely possibility. He said: "So as for William. It's much more difficult because the barbs were sent in his direction from Prince Harry, but very much directed towards Catherine. "That is very insulting, and I think William is likely to be more of an unforgiving person than his father." 7 7 Mr Vickers added: "I think at the moment, if I was advising Prince Harry, I would say, get onto good terms with your father as soon as possible, and then that's step one and step two, try to get on good terms with your brother." Harry previously revealed in a bombshell BBC interview that he had "forgiven" his family and reconciliation was now down to Charles. The feud between the Duke and his family started when he and Meghan Markle announced on January 8, 2020, that they would be stepping down as 'senior' members of the Royal Family. Since then it was revealed that Harry has limited contact with his father the King along with a slew of other revelations about the family feud. There was hope for reconciliation last year when Harry travelled to the UK to celebrate the 10 year anniversary of his Invictus Games. However, the King and Harry failed to meet due to the Monarch's "full programme". The Duke was offered to spend his time at one of the royal apartments - however he turned it down in what was branded a snub to his father. Meanwhile, Princes William and Harry have not been in direct communication since the release of Harry's controversial memoir, Spare, in January 2023. Their last reported interaction was during the funeral of their grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, in September 2022, but conversations were said to be brief. The feuding brothers reportedly did not speak to each other despite standing 'virtually back to back' among mourners at their uncle's memorial service last year. The brothers have been at loggerheads since Harry and wife Meghan quit royal duty in 2020 for a new life in the US, where they have launched a succession of barbs at the Royal Family. Growing up, Wills and Harry shared many of the same friends who were part of their close, tight-knit circle. But their relationship took a sour turn after Harry lobbed vile allegations against the Prince of Wales in his memoir Spare. In the book, he claimed William had physically attacked him and knocked him to the floor in 2019 and made insulting comments about Meghan. The Sussexes had also targeted Princess Kate, when Meghan claimed the royal made her cry. The bitter feud was ignited with full force when the Sussexes told Oprah, in their 2021 sit down interview, that certain members of the Royal Family had speculated about Prince Archie's skin colour. However it was recently revealed that Harry had "given his blessing" for peace talks between his and his father's senior aides to go ahead. It sparked a slew of reconciliation rumours with aides discussing potential ways to end their family conflict, though a proposal for Harry to make a royal return was not on the agenda. Despite the apparently hopeful move it was revealed that Prince William's aides were not involved in the London meeting. Harry has previously hinted at bad blood between him and his brother making reconciliation a distant prospect. A timeline of Prince Harry's family feud IN 2018, the Sun told how "simmering tension The first hints of friction reportedly came after William was introduced to Meghan when she was staying at Kensington Palace. Once she'd returned home to Canada, William and Harry sat down for a brother-to-brother chat. He knew Harry was already head-over-heels for her but it has been claimed he advised him to take it slowly. The younger prince reportedly didn't take too kindly to the advice, with one royal source saying he "went mental". Then in June 2019 Harry and Meghan officially split off from the charity they shared with William and Kate. The Royal Foundation will be divided between the Sussexes and Cambridges as the couples focus on their own separate charitable endeavours. Prince William and Prince Harry first established the Royal Foundation in 2009 before Kate joined two years later shortly after their engagement was announced. The trio would often appear together at events and the Foundation had huge successes with projects like the Invictus Games for injured veterans and the mental health Heads Together campaign. The Royal Foundation said the decision was made following the conclusion of a review into its structure - but added both couples will continue to work together in the future. Harry and Meg were living in close proximity to Kate and Wills within the Kensington Palace estate, but they switched to Frogmore Cottage in Windsor before baby Archie was born. The move further increased rumours of a fallout. Harry also hinted in his ITV documentary"Harry and Meghan, An African Journey" that he and his brother had grown apart. In 2021, Harry and Meghan give their bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey where Harry accused his dad of cutting him off financially. Harry then jetted back to UK to join William in unveiling a statue to their mother Princess Diana in the grounds of Kensington Palace. But sources claimed William didn't want to attend the memorial amid their ongoing rift. In 2022, just before their grandmother the Queen died, sources claimed Kate acts as a "peacemaker" between the brothers. Harry claimed his brother "knocked him to the floor" during an argument about Meghan, in his memoir. In Spare, Harry said William branded Meghan "rude" and "difficult" during a row. Harry alleged William "grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace, and … knocked me to the floor". He said he was left with a visible injury to his back following the argument in 2019 at Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace, where he was living at the time. In January 2024, Harry flew in to be with Charles after the monarch's shock cancer diagnosis. Harry flew back to the US the following day - without seeing Wills.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
When will the BBC learn from its errors?
It was a bad day for the BBC. First an internal report into accusations made against the MasterChef presenter Gregg Wallace criticised institutional failures to stop him earlier. It upheld 45 alleged instances of making inappropriate and sexually explicit comments. He was also found to have been 'in a state of undress' on three separate occasions and of making unwanted physical contact on another. The upshot is that Wallace, who denied the allegations and says he has autism, has been sacked and will never work for the BBC again. Complaints about Wallace's behaviour on MasterChef were raised with the BBC as long ago as 2013 and then again in subsequent years. Yet he continued to present the flagship programme until November last year. Only when this newspaper published the allegations did the BBC act with characteristic tardiness. This has been ruinous to Wallace's career and an embarrassment to the BBC, once again questioning the rigour of the Corporation's protocols. The same can be said of the second report to land on the desk of Tim Davie, the director-general. This confirmed that the BBC breached its editorial guidelines by failing to disclose that the child narrator of a Gaza documentary was the son of a Hamas official. The report criticised the BBC for not being 'sufficiently proactive' with initial editorial checks, and for a 'lack of critical oversight of unanswered or partially answered questions' ahead of broadcast. The fact that the BBC was unaware of the Hamas background of the narrator's father is irrelevant. The point is that it should have been far more diligent in establishing the bona fides of the programme before airing it, given the sensitivities of the subject matter. Why was a child narrator being used at all other than to give a tendentious slant to the reportage? The report said this was 'inappropriate' and it is hard to understand how the BBC, with all its checks, balances and regulations, let it slip through the net. Once again Mr Davie is facing calls for his resignation, as he did after the BBC's failure to prevent the broadcast of allegedly anti-Semitic rants by the rap artist Bob Vylan at Glastonbury. He has promised to 'prevent such errors being repeated' but where Israel is concerned they keep recurring. For how much longer?