Wikipedia May Have To Impose Identity Verification On Readers
At issue were the provisions of the Online Safety Act, which imposes new rules on the content of online platforms, to be managed by regulator Ofcom.
Certain organizations are to be rated as Category 1, assessed on criteria such as the ability to forward or share content and number of users. And these are subject to greater requirements, including user verification, swift removal of harmful content and age verification.
Most of the Category 1 platforms are those you might expect—Facebook, X and YouTube, for example. But Wikipedia is concerned that the criteria to be used could put it into the same category.
This would, it said, threaten online safety by requiring the foundation to interfere with users' editing decisions and possibly even verify their age. It could allow potentially malicious, users to block unverified users from fixing or removing any content they post—meaning more vandalism, disinformation or abuse.
It could also expose users to data breaches, stalking, vexatious lawsuits or even imprisonment by authoritarian regimes, the Foundation argued.
The foundation's only alternative would be to reduce the site's number of monthly users to take it out of Category 1 scope.
Now, though, the High Court of Justice has dismissed a legal challenge to the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations from the Wikimedia Foundation and an anonymous editor known as BLN.
Mr Justice Johnson said there might be ways to work within the law 'without causing undue damage to Wikipedia's operations' - and the Wikimedia Foundation is making the best of a bad job.
"While the decision does not provide the immediate legal protections for Wikipedia that we hoped for, the Court's ruling emphasized the responsibility of Ofcom and the UK government to ensure Wikipedia is protected as the OSA is implemented," said Phil Bradley-Schmieg, lead counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation.
'The judge recognized the "significant value" of Wikipedia, its safety for users, as well as the damages that wrongly-assigned OSA categorizations and duties could have on the human rights of Wikipedia's volunteer contributors."
Meanwhile, the court stressed that the ruling doesn't give Ofcom and the Secretary of State a green light to do anything to significantly impede Wikipedia's operations, and suggested that Ofcom may need to find a particularly flexible interpretation of the rules.
Ofcom's expected to make its first decisions on categorization this summer.
The Online Safety Act has come in for a barrage of criticism: the issue of categorization comes alongside broader concerns about privacy and safety.
"It is important to stress that this was not a challenge to the Online Safety Act, but instead to the regulations on categorization," commented Mark Jones, dispute resolution partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach.
"Further, the door is very much open for further legal challenge by Wikipedia, if Ofcom makes Wikipedia a category 1 service."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Why a new UK internet safety law is causing an outcry on both sides of the Atlantic
It was well intentioned but a U.K. law mandating age verification on adult sites and a number of other platforms has sparked a backlash from both internet users in the country, and U.S. politicians and tech giants. Last month, new provisions in the Online Safety Act requiring large online platforms to implement age checks to prevent children from accessing pornographic and appropriate material came into force. The measures have led PornHub, RedTube and other porn sites to force U.K. visitors to sign up and verify their age to gain access to their services. Broadly, the Online Safety Act is a law that imposes a duty of care on social media firms and other user-generated content sites to ensure they take responsibility for harmful content uploaded and spread on their platforms. In particular, the legislation aims to prevent children from being exposed to pornographic content and material that promotes suicide, self-harm, eating disorders or abusive and hateful behaviour. The regulation has been years in the making and faced numerous delays in its development — not least due to concerns that it may infringe internet users' right to privacy and result in censorship. The latest measures have been imposed with the aim of ensuring children aren't able to view harmful and inappropriate content. However, they have led to complaints from internet users due to the requirement of having to share personal information such as their ID, credit card details and selfies — in some cases for platforms that don't even qualify as porn sites. Spotify, Reddit, X and a number of other platforms have introduced their own respective age verification systems to stop users under the age of 18 from consuming explicit content. These moves have subsequently led to providers of virtual private networks (VPNs) to report that their services, which allow users to mask their location, are surging in the U.K. Meanwhile, on Monday, Wikipedia was dealt a legal blow in the U.K. as a High Court judge ruled the platform should be treated as a "category one" service, which would subject to certain user verification requirements. The Online Safety Act requires category one platforms to offer users the ability to verify their identity and access tools that reduce their exposure to content from non-verified users. Wikimedia, the parent company of Wikipedia, has said previously that it could limit visitor numbers from the U.K. in order to exempt it from category one status. A number of U.S. politicians have blasted the new rules in recent days. Last week, Vice President JD Vance — who has previously criticized the U.K.'s internet safety rules — again raised concerns with the law, fearing it could unfairly restrict American tech companies. "I just don't want other countries to follow us down what I think was a very dark path under the Biden administration," Vance told reporters during a trip to the country last week. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who also visited the U.K. recently, said in a statement after his return that sweeping online safety laws in Europe are having "a serious chilling effect on free expression and threaten the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies." There has been speculation over whether the U.S. may press Britain to relax the regulations during trade talks — however, U.K. officials say the issue is not open to debate. Other countries are already adopting their own respective internet age verification laws. Australia and Ireland have both passed similar age verification measures, while Denmark, Greece, Spain, France and Italy have started testing a common age verification app to protect users online. In the U.S., Louisiana passed a law in 2022 requiring age verification on websites where at least a third of the content is of an adult nature, while several other states are seeking to pass similar legislation.
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Mayor Brandon Johnson's pension working group slinks away without a word
In a few weeks, a working group appointed by Mayor Brandon Johnson is scheduled to provide preliminary recommendations on how to address Chicago's budget crisis. We have little doubt, given the mayor's understandable concerns about the city's $1 billion-plus budget shortfall for 2026, that we'll see a work product from that group. How useful it is remains to be seen, but there will be to read. We wish we could say the same about another mayoral working group that Johnson disbanded recently. That ad hoc body, which Johnson created in mid-2023 to confront the city's desperately underfunded municipal pensions, will provide exactly zero recommendations on how to address that crisis. The mayor acknowledged last week that the group was dissolved without producing a report, a damning indictment both of the internal operations of City Hall and how this mayor doesn't take seriously the cost side of Chicago's ledger while obsessing over finding more revenue to feed the government beast. The two issues — pensions and the city's structural fiscal woes — are tied together inextricably. The main reason taxpayers keep seeing their taxes, fees and fines rise while government services barely improve is the ever-increasing cost of meeting obligations tied to Chicago's four employee pension funds. Chicago is paying $2.9 billion this year for pensions, 17% of its total $17.1 billion budget. That is by far the highest percentage of any major U.S. city. For example, New York City, which also has a pension-debt issue, allocated 9% of its budget to pensions in fiscal 2025. Chicago would for its pensions to eat up just 9% of its budget. Chicago's pension problem just got exponentially more dire with Gov. JB Pritzker's signing earlier this month of legislation substantially sweetening retirement benefits for Chicago police and firefighters who'd been hired after 2010 — so-called Tier 2 employees. That measure alone added $11 billion to Chicago's pre-existing $36 billion pile of pension debt, a mind-boggling 30% increase. Police and fire pension funds that had just 25% of the assets needed to meet present and future obligations saw that percentage reduced to just 18% in one fell swoop. If Johnson's pension working group had managed to produce any recommendations, we'd have hoped that close to the top of the list would have been not to dig the city's pension hole any deeper. Or, certainly not any deeper than what is minimally necessary to comply with federal rules requiring that pension benefits at least match what Social Security would provide. Instead, Chicago got crickets. As recently as last April, we asked the mayor's office when the pension report would be released and were told at the time that it would be 'within the next two weeks barring unforeseen edits.' Two weeks came and went; we checked back on the matter a month later. We were told the group 'needed to go back and do some more work on it.' But it was coming, we were assured. Sort of the municipal-government equivalent of the 'check is in the mail,' we guess. Let's go back to the establishment of the pension working group. In the opening months of his mayoral term, Johnson rightly identified pension debt as perhaps the most important issue affecting Chicago's future. The group he appointed, unfortunately, was made up mainly of public sector union leaders and Democratic lawmakers allied with those unions. There was virtually no representation for taxpayers and businesses. So given its composition the group wasn't likely to offer bold ideas for securing Chicago's future solvency. Johnson apparently quickly realized as much because a year after the group's formation the administration sharply narrowed its focus from a broad look at the crisis to merely ensuring Tier 2 benefits are compliant with federal law. Even given that simple task, the group couldn't make what should have been an easy call. Johnson told reporters last week that members of the ad hoc panel who supported the unaffordable and unfunded sweeteners signed by Pritzker won the internal debate. Johnson called the result 'a disappointment.' What's disappointing is evidence once again of a lack of leadership from this mayor. When you appoint a working group made up overwhelmingly of those representing public sector unions and their political supporters, what sort of result do you expect? Do you expect them to call for sacrifice for their members? Do you expect them to give taxpayers any consideration? Apart from continuing his predecessor's practice of paying more into Chicago's pension funds than is minimally required, Johnson has failed on the issue that is most threatening to Chicago's future. That failure is symbolized most starkly in the mute dissolution of his own group, formed to help save Chicago from its pension morass but which instead silently acquiesced in making that threat markedly worse. A group whose members couldn't even summon the courage to give official voice to further imperiling Chicago's fiscal health and simply slunk away, knowing their favored outcome would win the day anyway.
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
How Congress could enter the fight over D.C.
IN TODAY'S EDITION:— GOP eyes congressional action on D.C. crime— Johnson's Epstein headache continues to throb— Judge deals Trump another impoundment blow President Donald Trump's targeting of D.C. crime is adding to Congress' busy to-do list this fall. Already House Oversight Chair James Comer plans to haul in city officials for a hearing next month, as Hailey Fuchs and Meredith Lee Hill report. But here are three other ways Trump's latest executive actions and announcements Monday could keep lawmakers occupied: — Extend the police takeover: Under the 51-year-old federal law creating D.C.'s local government, Trump can seize control of the city police force for 30 days. Extending the takeover beyond mid-September would require Congress to act. It's unclear whether Trump even wants that, and Democrats — who have long championed political autonomy for the District — could seek to block any such move, which would have to contend with a potential filibuster in the Senate. — Pass new legislation: Trump wants Republicans to change the District's longstanding bail policy, which allows criminal suspects to be released pending trial without putting up any money. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro also said Monday she wants Congress to overturn city juvenile justice laws that she thinks are too lenient toward young offenders. It's unclear how soon any legislation could hit the House floor, but an Oversight spokesperson said the panel plans to advance Rep. Byron Donalds' bill to curtail eligibility for D.C.'s youth offender system. Rep. Elise Stefanik, meanwhile, is working on a bill that would reverse no-cash-bail policies nationwide. — Fill the Superior Court bench: The president said he plans to send up several judge nominees for D.C.'s Superior Court, which require Senate confirmation. 'We have about 10 open spots, and we could probably create some more,' he said about the local court that has been dogged by vacancies. This battle could get caught up in another fall frenzy — over clearing the backlog of Trump nominees writ large. Typically Superior Court judges have been low on the Senate's priority list, but that might not matter if Republicans change Senate rules to speed up confirmations. We'll also make note of what Trump didn't mention: He's not calling for changes to the 1973 Home Rule Act itself, effectively removing D.C.'s self-governance. Nor did he mention the congressional budget change that forced the District to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of local spending earlier this year. With the fiscal year almost over, a fix has fallen off the Hill agenda. GOOD TUESDAY MORNING. Any early reviews of the new House dining options? Email us: crazor@ cdumay@ and bguggenheim@ THE LEADERSHIP SUITE Johnson's Epstein headache lives on If GOP leaders were counting on the Jeffrey Epstein frenzy to subside this summer, they already have reason to think otherwise. Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie said Monday they plan to hold a news conference on the Hill with victims of Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell once lawmakers return in September. The bipartisan pair will push for passage of their bill compelling the release of more Epstein files, and they'll also provide updates on their discharge petition effort to force a vote on the bill. Several of the victims will speak publicly about their abuse for the first time. If that isn't enough reason for Speaker Mike Johnson to worry, Missouri Republican Rep. Eric Burlison again called publicly for the release of more files Monday, posting on X that the case 'will not be buried for decades.' 'We cannot let the Epstein files become another JFK case… with decades of secrecy and unanswered questions,' Burlison wrote. 'The truth must come out now, not sixty years from now.' Meanwhile, in Wyoming Johnson kicked off his annual donor retreat Monday in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The programming, which continues today, includes discussions on topics like national security with Homeland Security Chair Andrew Garbarino and Rep. Jen Kiggans, the 2026 midterms with NRCC Chair Richard Hudson and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with Sen. John Barrasso. POLICY RUNDOWN JUDGE REAFFIRMS IMPOUNDMENT LAW — A Trump-appointed federal judge ruled Monday that the administration is illegally withholding funds previously approved by Congress for the National Endowment for Democracy, Katherine Tully-McManus reports. It's the latest in a deluge of legal challenges the Trump administration faces for allegedly freezing, cancelling or otherwise blocking billions of dollars in funds approved by Congress. The Endowment is a nonprofit supporting democratic institutions and individual liberties across the globe. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said the justification for withholding appropriated funds — a blitz against 'waste, fraud and abuse' backed by the Department of Government Efficiency initiative — was 'not plausible.' NEW CBO MEGABILL FINDINGS —The Congressional Budget Office published an analysis Monday with more details on the distributional effects of the GOP's sweeping domestic policy law, Toby Eckert reports. It could complicate the Republicans' sales pitch for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' while giving Democrats more ammunition to trash it as harmful to the most vulnerable Americans. According to the nonpartisan scorekeeper, the new policies will increase resources for the highest-earning tenth of households by $13,600 annually — thanks to the GOP's extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts. The lowest tenth of earners will see their incomes shrink by $1,200 per year due to additional cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. An accompanying CBO analysis Monday also details how changes to SNAP, including new work requirements, could result in an average of 2.4 million people being dropped from the food aid program every month. Best of POLITICO Pro and E&E: THE BEST OF THE REST A peace vigil sits near the White House. A congressman wants it gone, from Marissa J. Lang at The Washington Post A US senator from Colombia emerges as a Trump link for Latin America's conservatives, from Joshua Goodman and Julie Carr Smyth at AP THE CARRYOUT Welcome back to your Inside Congress hosts' favorite recess activity: sharing lawmakers' Capitol Hill food recommendations. Rep. Becca Balint said she has a 'really boring' go-to: a yogurt, banana and some Cheerios from the Longworth Cafeteria. 'It's rare,' Balint said. 'It's hard to get a banana after nine in the morning so you've got to be early.' What do you usually grab from Longworth? Email crazor@ CAMPAIGN STOP ABBOTT'S TEXAS THREAT — Gov. Greg Abbott is warning Democrats that if they decrease the number of red-leaning districts by redrawing congressional maps in California, Texas would respond in full force. 'If California tries to gerrymander five more districts, Texas has the ability to eliminate ten Democrats in our state,' Abbott said in an interview aired on CNN Monday. 'We can play that game more than they can because they have fewer Republican districts in their state.' DOGGETT PRESSURES CASAR — Texas Republicans' new maps draw Reps. Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar, both from formerly safe blue districts, into one Austin-based seat — and neither is backing down from a potentially thorny primary fight. 'In a House again controlled by Democrats, seniority is power,' Doggett, a 16-term lawmaker, said in a Sunday campaign email. 'And in fighting Republican shenanigans, experience is an asset.' Doggett is pressuring Casar — who is serving his second term in Congress — to run in a new district that he calls 'probably the most winnable Trump-created new district,' Gregory Svirnovskiy reports. Casar has yet to publicly respond. CARL RETURNS? — Former Rep. Jerry Carl plans to make a 'major announcement' on Aug. 18, he wrote on X. Carl filed recently with the FEC to return as a candidate in Alabama's first congressional district. The former lawmaker lost his 2024 Republican primary to Rep. Barry Moore after courts ordered Alabama to change its congressional map to include a second predominantly Black district. A federal court stood by that requirement last week. But now that Moore has hinted at a Senate run, Carl's old seat might open up. TUNNEL TALK WELCOME BACK HOUSE CAFS — The House CAO announced that the Ford Cafeteria is expected to open its doors Monday and the Longworth Cafeteria is scheduled to reopen Sept. 2. CAMPUS SAFETY — The office in charge of congressional workplace safety identified more than 2,000 hazards across the Capitol complex and other legislative facilities in its most recent report. That's a significant decrease from past years, according to the document, though inspections were limited during the pandemic. Longworth, the smallest of the three main House office buildings, counted the most safety hazards among member office spaces. The most common safety concern overall was electrical hazards, followed by problems with exit routes and emergency planning. The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights also noted it's still waiting for Congress' authorization to review data about Capitol Police injuries from the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. The office has argued that information previously turned over by the department didn't include sufficient detail to improve protections for officers during future, potentially violent demonstrations. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Former Rep. Connie Mack IV … Matt Sparks … Casey Nelson Hood of the House Republican whip's office … Justin Folsom of Southern Co. … POLITICO's Kyle Blaine, Joe Gould, Heather Richards, Rachel Myers and Scott Stephens … WaPo's Karen Attiah … Doris Truong ... Lesley Fulop Byers … BGR Group's Remy Brim TRIVIA MONDAY'S ANSWER: Timothy Trent correctly answered that Sens. Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell and Patty Murray have each cast more than 10,000 votes. TODAY'S QUESTION, from Cassandra: Visitors to the Capitol were prohibited from leaning over the chamber balconies in both the House and Senate after a suffrage activist unveiled a banner stating, 'Mr. President, What Will You Do for Woman Suffrage?' during which president's State of the Union address? The first person to correctly guess gets a mention in the next edition of Inside Congress. Send your answers to insidecongress@
