Signal attacks UK plan to scan devices for nude images as "mass surveillance"

[midian182]

A hot potato: Signal has issued a warning over the UK government's latest online safety push. The encrypted messaging app says plans to make phones and tablets scan for nude images will not protect children, and instead risk creating surveillance infrastructure that "endangers us all."

The device-scanning proposal was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer at London Tech Week. Under the plan, companies such as Apple and Google would be expected to activate built-in features on smartphones and tablets that detect and block nude images on children's devices.

The government wants the protections applied across an entire device, including cameras, third-party apps, search functions, and messaging services.

Apple already offers a version of this through its Communication Safety feature, which uses on-device machine learning to detect nude photos and videos, blur the content, and warn children before they view or send it. The company recently previewed expanded child safety tools at WWDC, though the UK proposal appears to go further by making the approach mandatory and pushing it beyond Apple's own ecosystem.

Adults would still be able to take, view, or share nude content, but only after passing age verification. If tech firms do not act within three months, the government says it will bring forward legislation, with fines for companies and possible criminal liability for executives.

The stated goal is to prevent grooming, sextortion, and children's access to pornography. The Home Office says 91% of online child sexual abuse reports recorded in 2024 involved self-generated content, while the average child now views pornography by age 13.

In a statement titled "Surveillance Is Not Safety," Signal said forcing UK residents to prove their age or have content scanned simply to communicate is a dangerous proposition.

Even if scanning takes place on-device, Signal argues that the system would normalize inspecting private content before it can be sent or viewed.

Supporters of client-side scanning have long argued that it protects privacy because images are checked locally rather than uploaded to a server.

However, critics say that once phones are required to inspect content for one category of material, the same system can be expanded to whatever governments deem "threats" or "harmful content."

"We know that mass surveillance and censorship capabilities, however sincere-sounding the promises of those who initiate them are, never remain narrowly scoped," Signal wrote.

Signal also warned that the system would strengthen the control Apple, Google, and Microsoft already have over users' most personal information. The company said real child safety should mean better-funded education, stronger social services, and meaningful guardrails around AI platforms, not default scanning on every device.

The UK has repeatedly pushed some of the toughest online safety rules in the West. WhatsApp and Signal previously said they would rather leave the United Kingdom than weaken encryption under the Online Safety Bill. More recently, the Online Safety Act's age-checking rules forced adult sites to demand selfies, IDs, credit cards, or other proof of age, prompting a surge in VPN use and creative workarounds.

Permalink to story:

Signal attacks UK plan to scan devices for nude images as "mass surveillance"

 

[NumberNine]

UK Government: "Alright adults, grab your ankles, it's time to protect the children."

 

[GeoffreyA]

1984 surveillance and age-appropriate behaviour aside, I think the world's attitude towards nudity is problematic. Violence is glorified in mainstream media but nudity is controversial. One can watch violent films with a parent, say, but let a breast or bush appear and all grow uncomfortable and silent. It is this prudish attitude that fosters "the forbidden," and leads youth to look at the distasteful representations out there.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

1984 surveillance and age-appropriate behaviour aside, I think the world's attitude towards nudity is problematic. Violence is glorified in mainstream media but nudity is controversial. One can watch violent films with a parent, say, but let a breast or bush appear and all grow uncomfortable and silent. It is this prudish attitude that fosters "the forbidden," and leads youth to look at the distasteful representations out there.

This is a very American take.

In much of the world it is the exact opposite. Violence is heavily frowned upon but nudity can be found easily.

 

[Squid Surprise]

This is a very American take.

In much of the world it is the exact opposite. Violence is heavily frowned upon but nudity can be found easily.

It’s a Puritan viewpoint - started in England and has dominated most former British colonies such as the US and Canada .

A Marvel movie that will have fight scenes and violence throughout will be rated PG whereas a movie that shows a nipple is rated R…

It’s SLOWLY changing - but we’ll need another generation or 2 before the majority realize how inane this value system is.

Ask yourself this: your child will almost certainly have sex one day… but will they ever kill someone? Why do we think that watching the latter is BETTER for them than the former on the big screen (or small screen)? Would you rather that they kill instead of breed?

 

[GeoffreyA]

This is a very American take.

In much of the world it is the exact opposite. Violence is heavily frowned upon but nudity can be found easily.

All right, in Europe, especially French cinema, nudity is more "ordinary" than in the English-speaking world and there's a frank, wholesome, unsurprised view of the body; but I would argue that violence is still more common.

 

[JamesBlond]

Imagine pdf'files having access to kids pictures... that could be interesting, so if we can find out who is passing the law for this or trying to force it we will know how is, there is something to be said and done about that

 

[Freddie159]

I think this would be very bad for people who are Dr's or Patients with medical issues that require 'nudity' to show where the problem lies.

 

[TheBigT42]

If anyone actually believes that this is to "protect the children" you are an I D 1 0 T.

 

[pnntmp]

The UK is rapidly devolving into a nightmarish, dystopian police state.
If Starmer were really concerned about child safety, he would have expelled the gangs of illegal primitives roaming the streets and raping children. Instead of doing that, he's focused on putting in jail the parents who express their concerns in social media.

Now on top of protecting child rapists and harassing their victims, he's going to use child safety as an excuse for mass surveillance. I have no idea how the people in the UK still put up with this.

 

[Tantor]

If this is successful in UK expect it to be rolled out for New Zealand, Canada, Australia and eventually the rest of the English speaking world, including the US.

It's sheer hypocrisy. The UK elites have for decades ignored problems caused by massive, indiscriminate 3rd world immigration. Problems such as sex grooming, female sexual mutilation, male circumcision, child marriage, knife killings, etc. These problems are utterly alien to traditional English values and practices. All of a sudden they're going to scrutinize everyone's private files, searching for anything they deem harmful. Notice how THEY decide what's moral and what's not, even though they did nothing to prevent widespread sexual grooming.

They are pretending to solve a problem... which they caused.

Starmer is a classic example. He and his family attend a synagogue, I.e., a middle eastern religious establishment which promotes circumcision, is deeply anti-Christian and most likely supports the Gaza genocide. Why anyone would believe he puts England's interests first is entirely beyond me.

It's 1984 in action.

 

[p51d007]

Ahhhhh kids today would LONG for the days of hiding a Playboy, Penthouse or Hustler magazine in their room.

 

[RichardW9001]

The UK is rapidly devolving into a nightmarish, dystopian police state.
If Starmer were really concerned about child safety, he would have expelled the gangs of illegal primitives roaming the streets and raping children. Instead of doing that, he's focused on putting in jail the parents who express their concerns in social media.

Now on top of protecting child rapists and harassing their victims, he's going to use child safety as an excuse for mass surveillance. I have no idea how the people in the UK still put up with this.

Just to add some reality to this comment section. there aren't gangs of 'illegal primitives' roaming the streets anywhere in the UK (unless you want to make a comment about the violent gangs currently burning down homes maybe lol). Nor are there any major problems with immigration in the UK as suggested by another commentor.

Most of our problems in the UK are due to the usual: rich people (corporations) taking their money out of the UK and not paying their taxes. And a ruling class that cares for giant corporations over the working class as usual. But of course we all need to be distracted by talk about 'the bad people' so we don't think at all about the rich people actually causing issues. If we can only get rid of 'the bad people', the country will be perfect.

 

[IksPiks]

They'd better keep an eye on their PDF-filic royal family instead of sticking their nose in your pictures.