Tag: moral panics

UK Lawmakers Propose Mandatory On-Device Surveillance and VPN Age Verification

Lawmakers in the United Kingdom are proposing amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would require nearly all smartphones and tablets to include built-in, unremovable surveillance software.

The proposal appears under a section titled “Action to promote the well-being of children by combating child sexual abuse material (CSAM).”

We obtained a copy of the proposed amendments for you here.

The amendment text specifies that any “relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have installed tamper-proof system software which is highly effective at preventing the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM using that device.”

It further defines “relevant devices” as “smartphones or tablet computers which are either internet-connectable products or network-connectable products for the purposes of section 5 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.”

Under this clause, manufacturers, importers, and distributors would be legally required to ensure that every internet-connected phone or tablet they sell in the UK meets this “CSAM requirement.”

Enforcement would occur “as if the CSAM requirement was a security requirement for the purposes of Part 1 of the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022.”

In practical terms, the only way for such software to “prevent the recording, transmitting (by any means, including livestreaming) and viewing of CSAM” would be for devices to continuously scan and analyze all photos, videos, and livestreams handled by the device.

That process would have to take place directly on users’ phones and tablets, examining both personal and encrypted material to determine whether any of it might be considered illegal content. Although the measure is presented as a child-safety protection, its operation would create a system of constant client-side scanning.

This means the software would inspect private communications, media, and files on personal devices without the user’s consent.

Such a mechanism would undermine end-to-end encryption and normalize pre-emptive surveillance built directly into consumer hardware.

The latest figures from German law enforcement offer a clear warning about the risks of expanding this type of surveillance: in 2024, nearly half of all CSAM scanning tips received by Germany were errors.

Keep reading

House Lawmakers Unite in Moral Panic, Advancing 18 “Kids’ Online Safety” Bills That Expand Surveillance and Weaken Privacy

The House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade spent its latest markup hearing on Thursday proving that if there’s one bipartisan passion left in Washington, it’s moral panic about the internet.

Eighteen separate bills on “kids’ online safety” were debated, amended, and then promptly advanced to the full committee. Not one was stopped.

Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D) set the tone early, describing the bills as “terribly inadequate” and announcing she was “furious.”

She complained that the package “leaves out the big issues that we are fighting for.” If it’s not clear, Schakowsky is complaining that the already-controversial bills don’t go far enough.

Eighteen bills now move forward, eight of which hinge on some form of age verification, which would likely require showing a government ID. Three: App Store Accountability (H.R. 3149), the SCREEN Act (H.R. 1623), and the Parents Over Platforms Act (H.R. 6333), would require it outright.

The other five rely on what lawmakers call the “actual knowledge” or “willful disregard” standards, which sound like legalese but function as a dare to platforms: either know everyone’s age, or risk a lawsuit.

The safest corporate response, of course, would be to treat everyone as a child until they’ve shown ID.

Keep reading

Lawmakers To Consider 19 Bills for Childproofing the Internet

Can you judge the heat of a moral panic by the number of bills purporting to solve it? At the height of human trafficking hysteria in the 2010s, every week seemed to bring some new measure meant to help the government tackle the problem (or at least get good press for the bill’s sponsor). Now lawmakers have moved on from sex trafficking to social media—from Craigslist and Backpage to Instagram, TikTok, and Roblox. So here we are, with a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on 19 different kids-and-tech bills scheduled for this week.

The fun kicks off tomorrow, with legislators discussing yet another version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA)—a dangerous piece of legislation that keeps failing but also refuses to die. (See some of Reason‘s previous coverage of KOSA here, here, and here.)

The new KOSA no longer explicitly says that online platforms have a “duty of care” when it comes to minors—a benign-sounding term that could have chilled speech by requiring companies to somehow protect minors from a huge array of “harms,” from anxiety and depression to disordered eating to spending too much time online. But it still essentially requires this, saying that covered platforms must “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce reasonable policies, practices, and procedure” that address various harms to minors, including threats, sexual exploitation, financial harm, and the “distribution, sale, or use of narcotic drugs, tobacco products, cannabis products, gambling, or alcohol.” And it would give both the states and the Federal Trade Commission the ability to enforce this requirement, declaring any violation an “unfair or deceptive” act that violates the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Despite the change, KOSA’s core function is still “to let government agencies sue platforms, big or small, that don’t block or restrict content someone later claims contributed to” some harm, as Joe Mullin wrote earlier this year about a similar KOSA update in the Senate.

Language change or not, the bill would still compel platforms to censor a huge array of content out of fear that the government might decide it contributed to some vague category of harm and then sue.

KOSA is bad enough. But far be it for lawmakers to stop there.

Keep reading

Nebraska Attorney General Calls Marijuana A ‘Poison’ And Says People Who Buy It From A Tribe Within The State Do So ‘At Their Own Peril’

The attorney general of Nebraska says people who buy marijuana under a Native American tribe’s planned legal market on its reservation within the state do so “at their own peril,” implying enforcement action against citizens for purchasing what he described as a “poison” if they take it beyond the territory’s borders.

During a press conference focused on an unrelated executive order, Gov. Jim Pillen (R) and Attorney General Mike Hilgers (R) were asked about ongoing negotiations with the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska over a tobacco tax compact and the tribe’s move to legalize cannabis within the prohibitionist state.

“I think that my position is crystal clear. I’m totally opposed in recreational marijuana,” the governor said. “If the Omaha tribe progresses to that extent, my view is really simple: There’s not going to be Nebraskans going into the Omaha buying recreational marijuana. We’ll take whatever steps it is to keep our state values and keep that from happening.”

Hilgers, the state attorney general, also spoke about the tribe’s cannabis program alongside the governor, as well as during a separate press briefing on Wednesday.

While compacts between the state and tribal governments can be “good” for both parties, he said what the Omaha tribe has proposed is both a usurpation of tax revenue from tobacco sales and a willful defiance of state laws around marijuana.

Keep reading

39 Bipartisan State And Territory Attorneys General Push Congress To Ban Intoxicating Hemp Products

A bipartisan coalition of 39 state and territory attorneys general is calling on Congress to clarify the federal definition of hemp and impose regulations preventing the sale of intoxicating cannabinoid products.

In a letter sent to the Republican chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations and Agriculture Committees on Friday, members of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) expressed concerns with provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill that legalized hemp, which they said has been “wrongly exploited by bad actors to sell recreational synthetic THC products across the country.”

They’re asking that lawmakers leverage the appropriations process, or the next iteration of the Farm Bill, to enact policy changes that “leave no doubt that these harmful products are illegal and that their sale and manufacture are criminal acts.”

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D), Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) led the letter, underscoring the bipartisan sentiment driving the call for congressional action.

“Intoxicating hemp-derived THC products have inundated communities throughout our states due to a grievously mistaken interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill’s definition of ‘hemp’ that companies are leveraging to pursue profits at the expense of public safety and health,” they wrote. “Many of these products—created by manufacturers by manipulating hemp to produce synthetic THC—are more intoxicating and psychoactive than marijuana a Schedule I controlled substance and are often marketed to minors.”

While the debate over revising federal hemp laws has been a consistent talking point this year, with attempts in both chambers to enact a ban on products containing THC, so far such restrictions have only been implemented at the state level.

“Unless Congress acts, this gross distortion of the 2018 Farm Bill’s hemp provision will continue to fuel the rapid growth of an under-regulated industry that threatens public health and safety and undermines law enforcement nationwide,” the letter says.

Keep reading

Whoops—Ohio Accidentally Excludes Most Major Porn Platforms From Anti-Porn Law

Remember when people used to say “Epic FAIL”? I’m sorry, but there’s no other way to describe Ohio’s new age verification law, which took effect on September 30.

A variation on a mandate that’s been sweeping U.S. statehouses, this law requires online platforms offering “material harmful to juveniles”—by which authorities mean porn—to check photo IDs or use “transactional data” (such as mortgage, education, and employment records) to verify that all visitors are adults.

But lawmakers have written the law in such a way that it excludes most major porn publishing platforms.

“This is why you don’t rush [age verification] bills into an omnibus,” commented the Free Speech Coalition’s Mike Stabile on Bluesky.

Ohio Republican lawmakers introduced a standalone age verification bill back in February, but it languished in a House committee. A similar bill introduced in 2024 also failed to advance out of committee.

The version that wound up passing this year did so as part of the state’s omnibus budget legislation (House Bill 96). This massive measure—more than 3,000 pages—includes a provision that any organization that “disseminates, provides, exhibits, or presents any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles on the internet” must verify that anyone attempting to view that material is at least 18 years old.

The bill also states that such organizations must “utilize a geofence system maintained and monitored by a licensed location-based technology provider to dynamically monitor the geolocation of persons.”

Existing Ohio law defines material harmful to juveniles as “any material or performance describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse” that “appeals to the prurient interest of juveniles in sex,” is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for juveniles,” and “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value for juveniles.”

Under the new law, online distributors of “material harmful to juveniles” that don’t comply with the age check requirement could face civil actions initiated by Ohio’s attorney general.

Supporters of the law portrayed it as a way to stop young Ohioans from being able to access online porn entirely. But the biggest purveyors of online porn—including Pornhub and similar platforms, which allow users to upload as well as view content—seem to be exempt from the law.

Among the organizations exempted from age verification requirements are providers of “an interactive computer service,” which is defined by Ohio lawmakers as having the same meaning as it does under federal law.

The federal law that defines “interactive computer service”—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—says it “means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.”

That’s a bit of a mouthful, but we have decades of jurisprudence parsing that definition. And it basically means any platform where third parties can create accounts and can generate content, from social media sites to dating apps, message boards, classified ads, search engines, comment sections, and much more.

Platforms like Pornhub unambiguously fall within this category.

In fact, Pornhub is not blocking Ohio users as it has in most other states with age verification laws for online porn, because its parent company, Aylo, does not believe the law applies to it.

“As a provider of an ‘interactive computer service’ as defined under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, it is our understanding that we are not subject to the obligations under section 1349.10 of the Ohio Revised Code regarding mandated age verification for the ‘interactive computer services’ we provide, such as Pornhub,” Aylo told Mashable.

Keep reading

Feds Call Marijuana A ‘Deadly’ Drug And Say Even Medical Cannabis Has ‘Serious Consequences’

Federal officials are calling marijuana a “deadly” drug—touting their efforts to seize it and other illegal substances—while also warning that possessing cannabis, even for medical use, carries “serious consequences.”

As President Donald Trump considers a cannabis rescheduling proposal—and after he posted a video on the health benefits of CBD—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are sending a conflicting message about cannabis.

In a press release about an August “surge” in drug seizures that was sent out on Tuesday, DHS said that CBP, as part of its “mission to stop harmful drugs from entering the United States,” was announcing that “seizures of deadly drugs—including fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana—increased substantially from July to August.”

That rhetoric as it concerns marijuana departs from how most people view and compare the plant with the other listed substances that can be associated with overdose deaths. By the federal government’s own admission in the past, cannabis has not on its own caused a fatal overdose.

“Cartels are increasingly desperate to keep doing business, but the Trump Administration is stopping their deadly operations,” CBP said.

While looping together marijuana and drugs like fentanyl might raise eyebrows, cartel-related crime associated with cannabis has been a consistent talking point in Congress. In fact, it was the subject of a House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, & Accountability hearing last month that focused on a so-called “invasion” of Chinese and Mexican cartels via illicit cannabis operations.

“Secretary Noem and the Department of Homeland Security are fulfilling President Trump’s promise to make America safe again by dismantling drug cartels and stopping the flow of deadly drugs into American communities,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “Thanks to President Trump, fewer American families will be torn apart by addiction, fewer lives will be lost to overdoses, and fewer profits will go to violent cartels.”

Separately, CBP posted a reminder on social media on Tuesday that cautioned travelers against bringing cannabis across the border.

“Attention, travelers! Did you know that marijuana is still a controlled substance under U.S. federal law?” it said. “This means that selling, possessing, producing, or distributing both medical and recreational cannabis is illegal!”

Keep reading

Australia enforces world’s harshest social media age crackdown

Australia is introducing the world’s toughest rules to keep children off social media, with platforms facing fines of up to $49.5 million if they fail to detect and remove underage users.

From December 10, social media companies must actively identify and deactivate accounts belonging to users under 16, block re-registration attempts, and provide proper appeals processes. Communications Minister Anika Wells has unveiled a list of “reasonable steps” platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube must follow.

The measures demand that age assurance technology not be a “set-and-forget” system and cannot rely solely on self-declaration. Platforms are encouraged to adopt a layered or “waterfall approach” using multiple checks across the user experience to detect underage accounts. They must also remove existing accounts “with care and clear communication” and provide accessible review options for those who believe they were wrongly flagged.

Wells and controversial eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant will present the guidance directly to tech companies during a visit to the United States later this month. After trials proved the technology exists to meet the requirements, Wells said there is no excuse for companies to fall short.

Keep reading

Former Trump Cabinet Member Says Marijuana Rescheduling Would Help To ‘Destroy This Country’

Ben Carson, President Donald Trump’s former secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), says a move to reschedule marijuana that the administration is actively considering would play into plots to “destroy this country.”

In an interview with Fox Business on Monday, Carson reiterated his opposition to cannabis reform as Trump weighs a proposal to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Asked why he feels his “caution” against rescheduling could lead the administration to reject the reform, Carson said that “with a lot of things, it’s just a matter of common sense.”

“It’s a matter of putting the facts on the table and then making policy decisions based on what those facts are,” he said, pointing to a study he claims found a “dramatic increase in crime” in neighborhoods with cannabis dispensaries.

“It doesn’t take a great deal of intellect to recognize that when you put these substances into communities and you make them easy to obtain, you get a much worse result,” Carson said. “Also, people say, ‘Well, you know, when I was young, I smoked marijuana. It didn’t cause me to have a lot of problems.’ Recognize that the marijuana of the 60s and 70s was much less potent than the marijuana today.”

Keep reading

Josh Hawley Proposes AI Regulations, Section 230 Repeal, and Digital ID Checks for Chatbots

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is pushing for broad new regulations on artificial intelligence, including age verification for chatbot access, data ownership rights, and the full repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

While the proposals are framed as efforts to curb corporate overreach in the tech industry, they will ignite concern among digital rights advocates who warn that such measures could undermine online privacy and freedom of expression.

At the National Conservatism Conference, Hawley accused AI developers of building their systems by collecting and using copyrighted material without permission. “The AI large language models [LLMs] have already trained on enough copyrighted works to fill the Library of Congress 22 times over,” he said.

“Let me just put a finer point on that — AI’s LLMs have ingested every published work in every language known to man already.” He claimed that creators were neither consulted nor compensated.

In July, Hawley introduced the AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act, which would allow individuals to sue companies that use personal data without consent and would establish property rights over certain categories of digital information.

However, two key components of Hawley’s platform are raising some alarm. His call to repeal Section 230 has been criticized for potentially damaging the open internet.

Section 230 currently shields online platforms from legal liability for content created by users. Without it, many sites could be forced to preemptively remove user content out of legal risk, resulting in widespread over-moderation and silencing of lawful speech.

Keep reading