A government spokesperson replied with an emailed statement, attributed to minister for security Tom Tugendhat, which dismisses any concerns: “The Online Safety Bill has privacy at the heart of its proposals and ensures we’re able to protect ourselves from online crimes including child sexual exploitation.The Bill ensures that tech companies do not provide a safe space for the most dangerous predators online.” Ryder’s analysis finds key legal checks are lacking in the bill which grants the state sweeping powers to compel digital providers to surveil users’ online communications “on a generalised and widespread basis” — yet fails to include any form of independent prior authorisation (or independent ex post facto oversight) for the issuing of content scanning notices.In Ryder’s assessment this lack of rigorous oversight would likely breach Articles 8 (right to privacy) and 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the ECHR.Existing very broad surveillance powers granted to UK security services, under the (also highly controversial) Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), do contain legal checks and balances for authorizing the most intrusive powers — involving the judiciary in signing off intercept warrants.“Ofcom, the state regulator, cannot in our opinion, be regarded as an independent body in this context.” He also points out that given existing broad surveillance powers under the IPA, the “mass surveillance” of online comms proposed in the Online Safety Bill may not meet another key human rights test — of being “necessary in a democratic society”."