Labour Digital Rights Network @LabDRN

🌹Heading to Labour Party Conference next weekend? Join us for a discussion on surveillance and civil liberties. Our founder, @cgdav135, will be part of a panel hosted by @BigBrotherWatch discussing how this government's approach to facial recognition technology and public order policing threatens free speech and protest rights. Details below ⤵️

👤 @RobertJenrick's plans to use AI to police benefit claimants is a recipe for mass false flags and discrimination. DWP’s existing AI black box is already fraught with errors and algorithmic bias, punishing innocent claimants. We are not anti-AI, but we are pro-fairness and pro-dignity. AI should be used to cut bureaucracy and support human decision-making, not as a punitive tool that automates suspicion against those who need help most.

We support @Jess4Lowestoft's call for tech companies to answer for online violence against women and non-consensual AI deepfakes. Platforms like Grok that profit from non-consensual image generation must face direct corporate liability. Safety-by-design isn't optional. But ministers must be warned: protecting women online cannot be a Trojan horse for device-level scanning software or state surveillance. Real accountability means dismantling Big Tech's predatory business model - not policing personal devices or eroding privacy.

Jess Asato MP @Jess4Lowestoft

a day ago

Half of 16–24-year-old women have experienced misogynistic violence online and 1 in 7 have left social media because of it, according to new research by @RefugeCharity If tech companies won’t act to curb sexist abuse, then the Government must step in 👇 labourlist.org/2026/09/tech-c…

6 3 14 739 1

🚨Our investigation with Democracy for Sale reveals five UK police forces have decided to stop working with Palantir on a controversial surveillance programme libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/palan…

⚠️Burnham’s new disinformation unit could repeat Covid-era censorship "Defence Secretary Wes Streeting tried to get ahead of these fears by claiming yesterday that the Government is “not interested in policing domestic political dissent”. But the work of the 77th Brigade — a specialised army unit tasked with information warfare — makes it clear how mission creep can change the nature of these units and end up targeting exactly what Streeting dismisses." - @JHurfurt Read⤵️ unherd.com/newsroom/burnh…

‘Labour should be wary of allowing its anti-disinformation efforts to seep into the domestic realm.’ Read @JHurfurt on Andy Burnham’s National Centre for Information Defence👇 buff.ly/N7B2UTW

🚨PM Andy Burnham announces a National Centre for Information Defence to 'detect, attribute and disrupt...hostile state information attacks'. "It is right that the UK Government takes action against foreign hostile states’ disinformation campaigns, but the public also deserves assurances that such action is strictly limited to overseas threats. We have already seen the mantle of countering "disinformation" being abused by our Government in attempts to malign and silence dissent. Big Brother Watch has repeatedly found that units including 🔹the Counter Disinformation Unit 🔹Rapid Response Unit 🔹RICU 🔹the MoD’s 77th Brigade have been involved in recording, flagging and triggering the censorship of Britons’ lawful speech. MPs across parties, journalists, human rights campaigners and members of the public have all been flagged in so-called ‘disinformation’ reports for lawful, truthful speech critical of the Government. We must not see a repeat of these abuses of power." - Silkie Carlo | @silkiecarlo

Security chiefs to set up new national centre to tackle disinformation and deepfakes from hostile states like Russia - with Andy Burnham saying government has a duty to “stem the poisonous tide” from damaging British interests. National Centre for Information Defence will “detect, attribute and disrupt” info attacks by foreign powers by bringing together intelligence agencies, law enforcement & social media companies. It will boost UK’s defensive capability to combat information warfare and build national resilience by helping communities combat disinfo, preventing “distorted & untrue” narrative about UK. theguardian.com/technology/202…

Andy Burnham is right that foreign disinformation exists, but there is a world of difference between hybrid warfare and British citizens expressing controversial or dissenting views online. This government has already shown its naivety by pushing for state-approved "trustworthy" news feeds and deploying counter-terror tools to track online narratives. Building a state censorship apparatus today guarantees it will be turned against dissent tomorrow.

Politics UK @PolitlcsUK

3 days ago

🚨 WATCH: Andy Burnham announces he will create a "National Centre for Information Defence" to combat foreign interference

763 283 3K 892K 334

Oh YEY … Andy has announced ANOTHER new department to “detect, attribute and disrupt” hostile state information attacks. ( they don’t say what “disrupt” means.) Anyway, I thought I’d remind you of all the other government, bodies already monitoring online narratives, disinformation and information threats… including from you. ▪️NSOIT (DSIT) - monitors publicly available online misinformation and disinformation affecting UK national security and public safety. ▪️Government Communication Service / Cabinet Office - monitors and analyses public social-media and search data across government. ▪️Media Monitoring Unit (Cabinet Office) - runs a 24/7 service monitoring print, broadcast and digital media for government departments. ▪️RICU (Home Office) - analyses extremist ideology, radicalisation, online exploitation and narratives linked to Prevent. ▪️Defending Democracy Taskforce - coordinates government, police and security agencies against foreign interference in UK democracy. ▪️Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit - examines threats around elections including disinformation, deepfakes and coordinated online manipulation. ▪️FCDO Information Threats and Influence Directorate - tracks and counters hostile-state information manipulation and propaganda overseas. ▪️77th Brigade (MOD) - conducts military information operations and analyses publicly available information and social-media trends relating to adversaries and disinformation. ▪️NCSC/GCHQ - investigates hostile cyber activity and foreign information threats, including those affecting elections. ▪️National Cyber Force - conducts offensive cyber operations, including disrupting hostile propaganda and influence activity. ▪️Social Cohesion Taskforce - monitors emerging community tensions and shares risk information across councils, government and Prevent. Don’t think you aren’t being watched … you are. x.com/WasAcop/status…

Burnham is launching a new “National Centre for Information Defence” to disrupt disinformation from hostile states. Hostile states like Russia and China are certainly waging disinfo campaigns here. The UK also wages information campaigns overseas. BUT… bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

1/. I have today written to @OpenAI @Meta @AnthropicAI @GoogleDeepMind to ask they appear in front of the Business, Innovation, Science & Trade Committee on 13 October to give evidence on the UK’s AI security regime. In our letter I have set out ten key questions on which we would like evidence in advance Further witnesses to be announced in due course ⬇️

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

This is getting interesting. The US reportedly summoned British officials to its London embassy over the UK censorship law, the Online Safety Act. It raised concerns over Ofcom’s fees, the social media ban, and plans to give “trusted media” more prominence in feeds and search results. The UK calls it a routine meeting. It doesn’t sound very routine...

Meta has launched a fresh legal challenge against Ofcom in London over the Online Safety Act. Lawyers representing Facebook’s parent company filed an appeal last week against Ofcom’s decision to place WhatsApp and Instagram — both owned by Meta — in a category subject to additional duties. These include greater transparency, enhanced user controls, measures to protect users from fraudulent advertising and increased reporting of illegal content. The move comes as the Trump administration and US tech companies grow increasingly vocal in their opposition to the fees and fines associated with Ofcom’s censorious regime. In May, Meta also launched a legal challenge against Ofcom, arguing that its methodology for calculating fines was flawed. Meta argued that fines should be based on a company’s UK revenue, rather than its global revenue. Under the Online Safety Act, social media companies can be fined £18 million or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue — whichever is greater. TikTok and X are also taking legal action over the volume of information they are required to hand over to Ofcom. Last week, the Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, said she would continue introducing legislation to regulate the internet. She said: “I think we’re going to have to start getting used to the idea, actually, that government is going to be far quicker, far more interventionist, and I think I’m going to have to see the law updated regularly because tech is changing so fast that we’ve got to be able to respond.” Ofcom is becoming increasingly draconian. Its enforcement of the Online Safety Act — and its extraterritorial ambitions — should concern us all.

NEW from @LInvestigates and Democracy for Sale: Five police forces to drop Palantir surveillance tool Read the full story at the link libertyinvestigates.org.uk/articles/palan…

As if the downward slide of the state of free speech in the UK wasn't moving fast enough, now there’s a proposal that would make government permission a condition of operating a social media platform. No Ofcom license = No platform. A new Private Member’s Bill would let speech regulator Ofcom license social media platforms, impose conditions, demand action against “materially harmful” or “false or misleading” content, and revoke the license. And here’s where the free speech implications get serious: the same regulator issuing the license would wield enormous power over what platforms are expected to restrict or remove. Lose the license and a court could order ISPs to block the platform across the UK. Operate without one? Up to 2 years in prison. This has only had its first reading and is not law. But the idea is now formally on the table: social media platforms needing a government regulator’s permission to operate in Britain.

Our right to privacy is under threat. This is a crucial moment to demand stronger protections for our data and our human rights. Help us defend personal data security, expose hidden misuse and fight for stronger safeguards. crowdfunder.co.uk/p/protect-our-…

The UK is pushing surveillance to an extreme, targeting encryption through secret orders while keeping the public in the dark. The UK government won’t confirm or deny ordering Apple to secretly backdoor iCloud, even though the order has been publicly reported, officials have effectively acknowledged it, and Apple is fighting it in court. Now a lawyer has called the secrecy stance “farcical.”