What Has Been Announced?

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed that the government intends to introduce legislation before Christmas that will prevent under-16s from accessing a range of major social media services.

The ban is expected to come into force in Spring 2027 and will apply to platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and X. Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal will not be included.

Announcing the plans, Starmer said: “That’s why we’re going further than any country in the world by banning social media for under-16s and putting wider protections in place to give kids their childhood back.”

The government has described the move as a “line in the sand” that will create “a new normal for future generations”.

The UK Is Going Further Than A Simple Ban

The proposal extends beyond simply preventing children from creating social media accounts.

The government has also announced restrictions on high-risk online features, including livestreaming and communication with strangers. These restrictions will apply not only to social media platforms but also to a wider range of online services, including gaming sites.

Importantly, some protections will remain switched on by default for 16 and 17-year-olds. Ministers say this is intended to avoid what they describe as a “cliff-edge at 16”, where protections would otherwise disappear overnight.

The government is also examining possible restrictions on infinite scrolling and overnight social media use for under-18s, with further details expected later this year.

Meanwhile, so-called AI “romantic companion” chatbots designed to simulate intimate or sexual relationships will be restricted to adults, while similar intimate AI functions will be limited for under-18s.

Why Is The Government Doing This?

The announcement follows a major public consultation that attracted more than 116,000 responses from parents, children and experts.

According to the government’s findings, nine in ten parents supported a social media ban for under-16s, while two-thirds of young people agreed that children under 16 should not be allowed to use at least some social media platforms.

The government argues that algorithmic feeds, real-time content, cyberbullying, harmful material, addictive platform design and online exploitation are creating risks that existing safeguards have failed to address.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said: “Today we take a bold and significant step towards creating a safer, healthier life online for our children and future generations.”

She also argued that technology firms had failed to act voluntarily, stating: “Tech companies have had countless opportunities to keep children safe, yet they have failed to act.”

How Will The Ban Be Enforced?

One of the biggest challenges will be ensuring that under-16s cannot simply bypass the restrictions.

The government says it intends to introduce stronger age assurance requirements and has asked Ofcom to carry out a rapid review into the most effective ways of verifying whether someone is over 16.

Officials have indicated that a range of methods could be used, including facial age estimation technology, identity verification and other forms of age assurance. Many adults may not need additional checks if their accounts are already linked to verified payment methods or age-verified accounts.

The government also says it is learning from Australia’s experience, where social media restrictions have already been introduced but enforcement has proved challenging.

Questions Remain

Not everyone supports the plans. For example, Meta, Snapchat and YouTube have all expressed concerns that blanket bans could push young people towards less regulated services that may be harder to supervise.

YouTube described itself as “a vital resource for young people, educators and parents”, while Meta warned that restrictions could risk isolating teenagers from online communities and information.

Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about age verification technologies, particularly where facial analysis or identity checks may be required to access online services.

Critics also point to evidence from Australia suggesting that many children have continued accessing social media despite restrictions, highlighting the practical difficulties involved in enforcing such bans.

Part Of A Global Trend

The UK’s decision reflects a broader international movement towards tighter controls on children’s access to social media.

Australia became the first country to introduce a nationwide under-16 social media ban, while countries including France, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia and others are either introducing similar measures or actively considering them.

Growing concerns about online harms, mental health, addictive platform design, cyberbullying and child exploitation are prompting governments around the world to reconsider the balance between online freedom and child protection.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the immediate impact may be limited, but the wider significance is substantial.

The proposals signal a growing willingness by governments to intervene directly in how digital platforms operate, particularly where child safety, wellbeing and online harms are concerned. Social media firms, gaming platforms, AI developers and technology providers may all face increasing regulatory scrutiny over the coming years.

The plans also highlight the growing importance of age verification, digital identity, online safety and responsible technology design. Organisations developing online services may find that demonstrating effective safeguards becomes just as important as launching new features.

More broadly, the announcement reflects a wider change in how policymakers view digital platforms. For many years, governments largely relied on technology companies to regulate themselves. The UK’s proposed ban suggests that approach is increasingly being replaced by direct intervention when policymakers believe public safety concerns outweigh the benefits of unrestricted access.

The post Featured Article : Under-16s To Be Banned From Social Media From 2027 appeared first on Mear Technology.

What Is The Government Proposing?

The announcement came from Prime Minister Keir Starmer during London Tech Week, where he said the UK would become “the first country in the world to make it impossible for children to take, share or view nude images.”

Under the proposals, technology companies including Apple and Google would be expected to activate existing safety features or introduce new technical measures that detect and block nude images on devices used by children. Adults would still be able to access such content after completing age verification checks.

Three-Month Deadline

The government has given technology companies three months to develop suitable solutions. If they do not, ministers have indicated they are prepared to introduce legislation, financial penalties, and potentially other enforcement measures.

The government argues that stronger intervention is needed because online child sexual abuse, exploitation, and exposure to harmful content remain widespread. Home Office figures cited alongside the announcement indicate that 91 per cent of online child sexual abuse reports recorded in 2024 contained self-generated content from children themselves.

Why Is Signal Opposing The Plan?

Signal, one of the world’s best-known encrypted messaging platforms, has responded forcefully to the proposals. In a public statement, the company said the government’s approach “will not safeguard children. It endangers us all.”

The company’s main concern is not the goal of protecting children, but the technology required to achieve it. Signal argues that forcing devices to scan content before it is viewed, shared, or stored would create a new form of surveillance infrastructure capable of examining private information on users’ devices.

According to Signal, “Forcing all UK residents to prove their age and/or have all their content scanned, simply to exercise their fundamental right to communicate, is a perilous proposition.”

The company also warned that once such capabilities exist, they rarely remain limited to their original purpose. Signal stated: “We know that mass surveillance and censorship capabilities, however sincere-sounding the promises of those who initiate them are, never remain narrowly scoped.”

The Debate Around Client-Side Scanning

At the centre of the controversy is a technology known as client-side scanning.

Unlike traditional content monitoring, which takes place on external servers, client-side scanning operates directly on the user’s device. Supporters argue this provides a compromise between privacy and safety because images do not need to be sent elsewhere for inspection.

Advocates say the approach can prevent harmful content from being created, viewed, or shared while keeping personal information on the device itself.

Critics, however, argue that the distinction is not as clear-cut as it appears.

Although images may never leave the device, the device is still examining content on behalf of a third party. Privacy groups have long argued that this changes the fundamental trust relationship between users and their devices.

Signal’s concern is that the same scanning infrastructure could potentially be expanded in future to identify other forms of content beyond child protection material. Whether or not such powers were ever used, critics argue that the capability itself creates new risks around surveillance, censorship, security vulnerabilities, and public trust.

A Wider Privacy Battle

The disagreement reflects a much broader debate that has been developing for years.

Previous UK legislation, including the Investigatory Powers Act and aspects of the Online Safety Act, has generated similar disputes between governments seeking stronger online protections and privacy advocates concerned about the long-term consequences of expanding monitoring powers.

Technology companies have also faced these questions before. Apple, for example, previously proposed a system for detecting child sexual abuse material on devices before ultimately abandoning the project following widespread criticism from privacy and security experts.

Supporters of the government’s latest proposals argue that child protection must take priority. Organisations including the NSPCC, Internet Watch Foundation, Barnardo’s, and the Children’s Commissioner for England have publicly welcomed the plans.

NSPCC chief executive Chris Sherwood described the proposal as “a major step forward in our fight against online child sexual abuse.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The wider significance of this dispute isn’t really about nude image detection. It is about where governments, technology companies, and citizens draw the line between child protection and personal privacy, particularly when proposals involve technology capable of examining content directly on people’s devices.

The debate also highlights a growing tension that businesses are increasingly encountering across cyber security, compliance, artificial intelligence, and digital regulation. Governments are seeking stronger protections against genuine harms, while technology providers and privacy advocates are warning about the unintended consequences of expanding monitoring capabilities.

The larger issue here is not simply whether children should be protected online, as few would disagree with that objective. The real debate is whether it is possible to achieve those protections without creating technologies that examine private content on personal devices. As governments around the world continue to grapple with that question, the outcome is likely to influence the future of privacy, encryption, and digital communications far beyond the UK.

The post Featured Article : Signal Warns UK Device Scanning Plan ‘Endangers Us All’ appeared first on Mear Technology.

Deal With Quantexa

The decade-long deal with London-based AI and analytics firm Quantexa marks one of the largest AI deployments ever seen inside the UK public sector. It also signals a major strategic change in how the government wants critical public systems to use artificial intelligence.

Rather than relying on a US technology giant, HMRC is betting heavily on a British-developed “Decision Intelligence” platform designed to connect fragmented data, identify suspicious patterns, and support human investigators and customer service teams.

Why HMRC Wants AI Help

HMRC has been under mounting criticism for years over long waits, processing delays, incorrect tax notices, and declining service standards.

According to figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests by the Contentious Tax Group, complaints against HMRC climbed to more than 93,000 in 2024/25, up sharply from around 70,000 five years earlier.

Also, compensation payments linked to HMRC errors and distress have also risen significantly.

At the same time, the tax authority is handling growing volumes of digital data as initiatives like Making Tax Digital expand across the UK economy.

It seems the problem for HMRC is not a lack of information, but that the information often sits in disconnected systems that can’t easily “see” relationships between people, companies, transactions, and behaviours.

Quantexa specialises in connecting fragmented datasets and using graph analytics and machine learning to identify patterns, relationships, and anomalies that would be extremely difficult for human investigators to spot manually across millions of disconnected records and transactions.

Its technology was originally developed for anti-money laundering work inside banks. Customers already include HSBC and Vodafone.

Now HMRC wants to apply similar techniques to tax compliance, fraud detection, and operational efficiency.

Connecting The Dots

One of the most significant parts of the project involves what Quantexa calls “entity resolution”. In simple terms, the system attempts to identify when multiple records, companies, transactions, or identities may actually be connected.

That matters because complex fraud networks often hide behind layers of shell companies, false references, mismatched addresses, or disconnected records spread across multiple databases.

The technology is designed to create what Quantexa describes as “a clearer, connected view of its data to improve performance, help identify tax at risk, and strengthen control.”

Positive Points

One positive point about the new system is that it should be able to help HMRC track legitimate payments that have been incorrectly referenced, which could potentially reduce some of the administrative headaches faced by businesses and taxpayers.

Also, importantly, Quantexa says the platform is not intended to replace human decision-making. As Quantexa CEO Vishal Marria says: “In government environments, AI cannot operate as a black box,” and that “Decisions need to be transparent, auditable, and explainable, particularly in areas affecting citizens directly.”

In fact, this point matters politically as much as technically. For example, governments worldwide are increasingly nervous about allowing opaque AI systems to make decisions affecting taxes, benefits, healthcare, or policing without clear accountability.

The Digital Sovereignty Angle

There is another layer to this story that goes well beyond tax collection. The Quantexa deal is being viewed inside government as part of a wider push towards so-called “digital sovereignty”.

In recent years, the UK government has awarded huge contracts to American data firms including Palantir Technologies, the US data analytics company co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel, whose NHS data platform deal generated considerable political controversy.

This time, ministers appear keen to emphasise that the supplier is British, the systems are governed, and the data stays under HMRC control.

Also, Quantexa’s online announcement about the deal with HMRC strongly emphasised sovereignty and governance concerns, with Quantexa highlighting how “Public sector organisations are accelerating digital transformation while needing to maintain sovereignty, auditability and control.”

It added that the platform creates “a trusted, governed foundation for advanced analytics and the safe deployment of AI at scale.”

The language used around the project is deliberate because governments are no longer debating simply whether AI can improve public services, they are increasingly focused on who controls the systems, where sensitive national data is stored, and whether automated decisions can be properly explained, audited, and challenged when citizens are affected.

A Major Test For Government AI

The contract could become a defining test case for how AI is used across British government departments. If successful, similar approaches could spread rapidly into compliance, policing, border control, welfare systems, and other high-data public services.

However, the pressure to deliver will be intense because HMRC’s tax gap currently stands at £46.8 billion, representing money theoretically owed but not collected, and the government is clearly placing significant faith in AI and Quantexa’s ability to help recover far more of it. Quantexa founder and CEO Vishal Marria says governments worldwide are struggling with “how to turn complex, fragmented data into confident, timely decisions”, which goes directly to the heart of HMRC’s long-running problems with disconnected systems, slow processes, and rising operational complexity. The company believes that by “creating context from data and embedding trusted, governed AI”, HMRC will be able to make “confident, informed decisions” more quickly, while improving fraud detection, strengthening oversight, and reducing the kinds of administrative errors that have increasingly damaged public confidence in the tax authority.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, accountants, and taxpayers, this signals a future where HMRC becomes far more data-driven, interconnected, and AI-assisted. That could mean faster identification of fraud and errors, quicker handling of customer queries, and improved detection of suspicious tax activity.

It could also mean increased scrutiny. As AI systems become better at linking records and spotting inconsistencies across datasets, businesses may find it harder to hide mistakes, discrepancies, or unusual financial behaviour inside disconnected systems.

At the same time, the project highlights something much bigger happening across the UK economy. Artificial intelligence is rapidly moving beyond chatbots and productivity tools into core national infrastructure, including taxation, compliance, and public administration.

It now seems that businesses that maintain accurate records, consistent reporting, and well-organised financial systems are likely to face far fewer problems in an environment where AI is increasingly being used to connect data, identify anomalies, and scrutinise tax activity far more efficiently than before.

The post Featured Article : HMRC Deploys British AI To Hunt Tax Fraud appeared first on Mear Technology.

UK Government Expands Free AI Training Programme

The UK government has announced a major expansion of its national AI skills programme, making free AI training available to every adult in the country through the AI Skills Boost initiative. Led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in partnership with Skills England, the programme is being positioned as a response to growing concerns about workforce readiness as artificial intelligence becomes more widely embedded across workplaces.

10 Million People By 2030

The expansion builds on a commitment made in June 2025, when government and industry partners first set out plans to train 7.5 million workers in AI-related skills. The latest announcement increases that ambition to 10 million people by the end of the decade, equivalent to nearly a third of the UK workforce, and frames the initiative as the largest targeted training programme since the creation of the Open University.

Who Can Access The Training And How?

The training is open to all UK adults and is delivered online through the government’s AI Skills Hub, a free platform where users can create a learning profile and follow a structured learning journey. No prior technical knowledge is required, and the courses are designed to be accessible alongside existing work or caring commitments.

Courses vary in length, with some taking under 20 minutes to complete, while others run for several hours. Participation is voluntary, and learners can choose which courses to take based on their role, interests or level of confidence with digital tools. The government has said that NHS staff and local government employees will be among the first groups actively encouraged to take part, supported by their employers and representative bodies.

What Do The Courses Teach?

The focus of the training is on practical workplace use rather than technical development of AI systems. For example, courses concentrate on helping workers use commonly available AI tools safely and effectively as part of everyday tasks.

This includes learning how to write and refine prompts for generative AI tools, use AI to draft text and create content, automate routine administrative processes, and interpret simple AI dashboards to identify trends. The training also covers responsible use, including understanding the risks, limitations and potential consequences of using AI at work.

All approved courses have been assessed against Skills England’s AI foundation skills for work benchmark, which sets out a nationally defined baseline for AI literacy in the workplace. Anyone who completes a course that meets the benchmark receives a government-backed virtual AI foundations badge, which can be used on CVs and professional profiles to demonstrate recognised skills.

Why The Government Is Prioritising AI Skills

The expansion of AI training reflects evidence that AI adoption in the UK remains uneven and that confidence among workers is low. For example, research published alongside the announcement found that only 21 per cent of UK workers currently feel confident using AI in their jobs. Business adoption data suggests that as of mid-2025 only around one in six UK businesses were using AI at all, with much lower uptake among small and micro businesses.

Government analysis suggests that improving adoption and confidence could deliver significant productivity gains. Ministers estimate that wider use of AI could unlock up to £140 billion in additional annual economic output by reducing time spent on routine tasks and enabling workers to focus on higher value activity.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall highlighted how the training is intended to ensure the benefits of AI are widely shared, saying, “We want AI to work for Britain, and that means ensuring Britons can work with AI,” adding that, “Change is inevitable, but the consequences of change are not. We will protect people from the risks of AI while ensuring everyone can share in its benefits.”

The Role Of Industry And Public Sector Partners

Delivery of the programme relies on a large partnership between government, industry and public sector organisations. For example, founding partners including Accenture, Amazon, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Salesforce, Sage and SAS have been joined by a wider group that now includes the NHS, British Chambers of Commerce, Federation of Small Businesses, Institute of Directors, Local Government Association, Cisco, Cognizant, Multiverse, Pax8 and techUK.

Industry partners are responsible for developing many of the courses hosted on the AI Skills Hub, while representative organisations are expected to promote the training to their members and workforces. The involvement of the NHS, the UK’s largest employer, is intended to support large scale uptake in the public sector and reinforce the relevance of AI skills beyond technology focused roles.

Phil Smith, Chair of Skills England, has said the benchmark was designed to provide clarity for both learners and employers about what AI skills are needed for work. He said the digital badges awarded on completion would provide clear recognition of learning and help set consistent standards for AI upskilling across the economy.

Funding And Wider Skills Measures

The training offer forms part of a broader package of measures aimed at preparing the UK workforce for AI-driven change. For example, the government has announced £27 million in funding for a new TechLocal scheme, part of the wider £187 million TechFirst programme, which will support local employers and education providers to develop AI-related jobs, professional practice courses, graduate traineeships and work experience opportunities.

Alongside this, the government has launched applications for the Spärck AI Scholarship, which will fund up to 100 master’s students in AI and STEM subjects at nine UK universities. The scholarships will cover tuition and living costs while providing access to industry placements and mentoring.

A new AI and the Future of Work Unit has also been established to monitor the economic and labour market impact of AI. Supported by an expert panel drawn from business, academia and trade unions, the unit is intended to provide evidence-based advice on when policy interventions may be needed to support workers and communities as roles and skills evolve.

The Implications For Employers And Businesses

For employers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, the programme offers a low-cost route to building basic AI capability across teams. Business groups including the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce have welcomed the initiative, citing uncertainty among employers about what AI skills staff need and how to support responsible adoption.

Large employers involved in the programme have pointed to their own experience of rolling out AI tools internally, noting that productivity gains depend heavily on shared understanding and confidence rather than access to technology alone. The government argues that a nationally recognised benchmark will help employers set clearer expectations and reduce the risk of misuse or unrealistic assumptions about AI.

Criticisms And Questions

Despite broad support, the initiative has attracted criticism from some policy groups and professional bodies. For example, the Institute for Public Policy Research has warned that short, tool-focused courses risk oversimplifying what it means to be prepared for AI-enabled work. Critics argue that effective adaptation also requires judgement, critical thinking, leadership and organisational change, which cannot be delivered through brief online modules alone.

There are also questions about how impact will be measured over time. For example, while the government has committed to reaching 10 million workers by 2030, it has not yet set out detailed plans for tracking completion rates, long-term skills retention or productivity outcomes across different sectors. Concerns have also been raised about the mix of free and subsidised courses on the AI Skills Hub and whether this could cause confusion about access.

The government has said the AI Skills Boost programme will continue to evolve, with new courses, partners and benchmarks added as workplace use of AI develops and expectations around skills mature.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The expansion of free AI training marks a clear attempt by government to address one of the most persistent barriers to AI adoption in the UK, which is a lack of confidence and shared understanding rather than access to technology itself. By setting a national benchmark and backing it with widely accessible courses, the programme establishes a common baseline for what it means to use AI responsibly at work, something many employers and workers have so far lacked.

For UK businesses, particularly small and medium-sized firms, the initiative could lower the practical and financial threshold for experimenting with AI tools in everyday operations. A clearer definition of core skills may help employers move beyond uncertainty and begin integrating AI in measured, realistic ways, while also supporting better internal governance and expectations around use. Larger organisations and public sector bodies may benefit from a more consistent skills foundation across teams, reducing fragmentation and uneven uptake.

For workers, the availability of short, recognised courses offers a route to building confidence without committing to formal retraining or specialist qualifications. The emphasis on practical use, risk awareness and responsible adoption reflects an acknowledgement that AI will increasingly sit alongside existing roles rather than replace them outright in the near term.

At a national level, the programme aligns skills policy more closely with the government’s wider ambitions on productivity, economic growth and technological adoption. Whether it delivers lasting impact will depend on uptake, the quality of training, and how effectively it connects to broader workforce development and organisational change. The creation of the AI and the Future of Work Unit suggests an awareness that skills alone will not resolve all challenges, but it also places responsibility on government, employers and industry partners to ensure the transition is managed in a way that supports workers and delivers tangible economic benefit.

The post Featured Article : UK Government Offers Free AI Training for All UK Adults appeared first on Mear Technology.

Amendment Backed

By 261 votes to 150, peers backed a cross-party amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would require platforms to deploy “highly effective” age checks within a year, marking a rare but not unusual legislative defeat for ministers in the Lords and setting up a politically sensitive return to the Commons.

Who Is Pushing for a Ban and Why?

Support for an under-16 social media ban cuts across party lines at Westminster and is being driven by concern that existing rules are not doing enough to limit children’s exposure to online harms. The amendment in the Lords was sponsored by Conservative former schools minister Lord Nash and backed by Conservative, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers, along with a small number from Labour. Those in favour argue that a clear national age limit would give parents and schools stronger backing when setting boundaries, while placing the responsibility for enforcement squarely on social media companies rather than families.

In The Commons Too

Momentum has also grown in the Commons. For example, more than 60 Labour MPs have publicly urged ministers to act, while the issue has been raised repeatedly at Prime Minister’s Questions. Outside Westminster, bereaved families and online safety advocates have called for decisive action, citing concerns around mental health, exposure to harmful content and compulsive use. At the same time, children’s charities and civil liberties groups have warned that a blanket ban could create unintended consequences, including displacement to less regulated services and wider use of intrusive age verification.

Australia’s Move and Why It Changed the UK Debate

It seems that UK political interest on this subject intensified after Australia introduced a minimum-age framework in late 2025. Rather than criminalising children’s use, Australia placed the onus on platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from holding accounts on age-restricted social media services, with enforcement beginning in December 2025.

The Australian model matters because it focuses on accounts rather than total access. For example, under guidance from the Australian Department of Infrastructure and the eSafety Commissioner, under-16s are not penalised for attempting to use services; platforms face compliance action if they fail to implement safeguards. The framework also includes privacy protections around age assurance data and allows some logged-out access, limiting the scope of checks to user accounts.

Australia’s model has become a key reference in the UK debate, cited by ministers and peers as evidence that age-based restrictions could be enforced without universal identity checks. For example, supporters highlight its focus on blocking account creation rather than access itself, while critics argue the policy is too recent to show whether it delivers lasting reductions in harm.

Why the Lords Backed the Amendment

It seems the Lords’ vote reflected frustration with the pace of change and a belief that existing powers are not delivering fast enough. Supporters argued that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill provided a practical vehicle to force action within a defined timeframe, rather than leaving the issue to future legislation.

During the debate, Lord Nash (Conservative) described teenage social media use as a “societal catastrophe”, arguing that delaying access would give adolescents “a few more years to mature”. Other peers pointed to rising demand for child and adolescent mental health services and disruption in classrooms, while accepting that social media also offers benefits.

However, opponents in the chamber urged caution. For example, Labour peer Lord Knight warned that a blanket ban could push young people towards “less regulated platforms” and deprive them of positive connections, calling instead for young people’s voices to be heard through consultation.

What the Amendment Actually Requires

The amendment does not list specific apps. Instead, it uses the Online Safety Act’s category of “regulated user-to-user services” and sets out a process whereby, within 12 months of the Act passing, ministers would be required to:

Direct the UK Chief Medical Officers to publish advice for parents on children’s social media use at different ages and stages of development.

Introduce regulations mandating “highly effective age assurance” to prevent under-16s from becoming or being users of in-scope platforms.

Crucially, those regulations would be enforceable under the Online Safety Act, bringing them within Ofcom’s existing compliance framework, and would require affirmative approval by both Houses. In practice, that means Parliament would still vote on the detailed rules, including which services fall in scope and what counts as “highly effective”.

How a Ban Could Be Implemented and Enforced

Enforcement would likely focus on preventing account creation by under-16s rather than blocking all content. For example, platforms could be required to use a mix of age-estimation tools, document checks, device signals and repeat prompts, alongside anti-spoofing measures to deter workarounds.

Supporters of the ban argue that reducing exposure, rather than eliminating it entirely, would still lower harm by making social media use less universal among teenagers and easing peer pressure to participate. However, critics say that determined users will continue to find ways around controls, while warning that large-scale age assurance could extend far beyond children, pulling adults into verification systems and normalising online surveillance.

Restricting mainstream platforms also carries a displacement risk, e.g., with some teenagers likely to migrate to smaller or overseas services that operate with weaker moderation and fewer safeguards, potentially complicating child protection rather than improving it.

Why the Government Is Resisting for Now

The government has resisted writing an under-16 social media ban into law for now, opting instead to launch a three-month consultation on children’s online safety that includes the option of a ban alongside measures such as overnight curfews, limits on “doom-scrolling”, tougher enforcement of existing age checks and raising the digital age of consent from 13 to 16.

In a statement to the Commons, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would “look closely at the experience in Australia” and stressed the need for evidence-led policy. She acknowledged strong views in favour of a ban but warned of risks in different approaches, arguing consultation was the responsible route.

Kendall also emphasised that action is coming regardless, stating: “The question is not whether the government will take further action. We will act robustly.” The resistance, ministers argue, is about timing and design rather than principle.

What It Would Mean for Platforms, Parents and Teenagers

For platforms operating in the UK, a ban would mean heavier compliance costs, tighter onboarding processes and closer scrutiny from regulators. Advertising, influencer marketing and youth-focused features would also face new constraints, while demand for privacy-preserving age assurance services would rise.

For parents, a clear legal line could reduce the burden of negotiating platform rules alone and provide stronger backing for limits at home and in schools. For teenagers, the picture is a bit more mixed. For example, Ofcom research shows most young people report positive experiences online, with many saying social platforms actually help them feel closer to friends. Critics argue that removing access could disproportionately affect isolated or minority groups who rely on online communities.

Business and Policy Implications

Beyond families and platforms, the amendment highlights a broader policy shift. For example, treating social media access more like other age-restricted products would move the UK closer to a regulated-by-default model, with implications for digital identity, privacy and compliance across sectors.

Businesses that rely on youth audiences would need to adjust strategies, while regulators would face pressure to ensure age assurance does not expand unnecessarily. Internationally, the UK’s approach would, no doubt, be watched closely, adding to a growing global debate about how far states should go in reshaping children’s digital lives.

Criticisms Shaping the Commons Fight

As the Bill returns to MPs, the arguments are most likely to focus on scope and consequences rather than intent. For example, critics warn of surveillance creep, imperfect enforcement and the risk of pushing harms elsewhere, whereas supporters say that waiting for perfect solutions still leaves children exposed and that clear age limits would reset expectations.

It’s worth noting here that, with the government’s majority, ministers are pretty likely to overturn the amendment. That said, the Lords’ vote has at least already achieved part of its aim by forcing the issue to the centre of the legislative agenda, ensuring that the consultation’s outcome, and the next steps that follow, will be closely scrutinised.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The outcome now hinges on how far ministers are willing to go beyond consultation and whether political pressure in the Commons forces a clearer timetable for change. Even if the Lords amendment is removed, the debate has narrowed the government’s room for manoeuvre by placing an under-16 ban firmly within the range of realistic policy options rather than the margins of discussion. The question has, therefore, now shifted from whether intervention is justified to how prescriptive the state should be, and how quickly any new rules should take effect.

For UK businesses, particularly digital platforms, advertisers and firms operating in regulated online spaces, the policy implications are becoming harder to ignore. Stronger age assurance requirements would bring higher compliance costs and technical complexity, while also creating opportunities for providers of privacy-preserving verification tools and child safety services. More broadly, a move towards age-based restrictions on mainstream platforms would reinforce the UK’s position as a jurisdiction willing to regulate digital products in the same way as other age-sensitive services, with knock-on effects for investment decisions and product design.

For parents, schools and young people, this whole debate reflects a wider tension between protection and participation in digital life. A clear legal threshold could simplify boundary-setting and expectations, yet risks limiting access to the positive aspects of online connection that many teenagers value. How the government balances these competing interests, and whether it opts for a targeted regulatory approach or a clearer statutory ban, will shape not just children’s online experiences but the future direction of UK digital policy more broadly.

The post Featured Article : Lords Back Under-16 Social Media Ban appeared first on Mear Technology.

What Ofcom Has Decided

On 1 December 2025, Ofcom announced that it had imposed a £23.8 million penalty on Virgin Media for serious failings during its programme to migrate customers from traditional analogue landlines to digital services.

Why?

The regulator’s investigation concluded that, between August 2022 and December 2023, Virgin Media’s handling of telecare users breached its consumer protection obligations. For example, under Ofcom’s rules, telecoms providers must have clear and effective policies to ensure the fair treatment of customers whose circumstances make them vulnerable.

In practice, Ofcom found that Virgin Media failed on two major fronts. First, it did not properly identify and record telecare customers, which created significant gaps in its screening and support processes. Second, it disconnected some known telecare users who did not respond to the company’s contact attempts about the digital switchover, despite the risks that disconnection posed.

Those disconnections prevented telecare alarm devices from reaching monitoring centres in an emergency, leaving affected users in potentially unsafe situations. Ofcom said this put thousands of vulnerable people at direct risk of harm.

Four Weeks To Pay

Virgin Media must pay the £23.8 million fine within four weeks. The amount reflects a 30 per cent reduction in recognition of the company’s decision to admit liability, cooperate with Ofcom’s investigation and enter a formal settlement process.

Why Telecare Users Were So Exposed

Telecare systems are widely used by elderly, disabled or otherwise vulnerable people who rely on an emergency pendant or wristband to call for help. When activated, the device connects via the user’s landline to an alarm monitoring centre or a designated carer. Any break in that connection, therefore, can have severe consequences for anyone experiencing a fall, sudden illness or another emergency.

Transition

The UK’s telecoms sector is currently transitioning from the ageing public switched telephone network, the copper based PSTN, to digital IP based voice services. The PSTN is now considered beyond its intended lifespan and increasingly unreliable, which is why the digital upgrade is underway across the industry.

For most households, the change is relatively straightforward. For telecare users, however, migration must be handled with greater care. Telecare devices may not work correctly if not fully tested on digital lines, and power outages can affect digital services unless appropriate backup solutions are in place. For this reason, Ofcom has repeatedly stressed that telecoms companies must identify, protect and support these users throughout any transition.

How Virgin Media’s Switchover Went Wrong

Virgin Media first alerted Ofcom to a series of “serious incidents” involving telecare customers in November and December 2023. These reports triggered a formal investigation into whether the company had systemic issues in its migration process.

Over a period of roughly sixteen months, Ofcom found that Virgin Media’s approach had exposed vulnerable users in several ways. For example, significant numbers of telecare customers were not correctly identified in Virgin’s internal systems, meaning they were not flagged for the additional support required during migration.

Ofcom also found that Virgin Media disconnected some telecare users who did not respond to letters, emails or calls about the switchover. These disconnections went ahead even though the company was aware of the risks this created for users who depended on working landlines for emergency assistance.

During its remedial work, Virgin Media contacted 42,991 identified telecare customers to support them through migration. This figure gives a sense of the scale of the telecare customer base that the company needed to re-assess once the issues came to light.

What Virgin Media Says In Its Defence

Virgin Media has accepted Ofcom’s findings and the pretty substantial fine. The company has emphasised that the majority of migrations were completed without issue, but acknowledges that it did not get everything right for telecare users.

A spokesperson said the company recognised the problems that occurred and had since addressed the issues identified by Ofcom. Virgin Media has also highlighted the broader context, stating that the move to digital phone lines is essential because analogue lines are becoming less reliable and are increasingly difficult to maintain.

Reviews And Improvements

The company says it’s carried out an end to end review of its digital migration processes and introduced a “comprehensive package of improvements”, including:

– Better targeted communications for telecare users.

– Additional in home support during the switchover.

– Extensive post migration checks.

– Manual reviews of customer records to identify additional telecare users.

– A new policy that keeps non engaging telecare customers in a continuous engagement process rather than disconnecting them.

Virgin Media also says it is working with government, Ofcom and local authorities on a national awareness campaign to help improve understanding of the digital switchover and the specific needs of telecare users.

Virgin Media Customers

For most customers, the fine itself doesn’t change day to day services, since the money will go directly to the Treasury. However, the wider questions relate to whether Virgin Media’s updated processes are now strong enough to prevent a recurrence and whether customers, particularly those responsible for the care of vulnerable people, can have confidence in the company’s revised safeguards.

Businesses that rely on landlines for safety critical systems are likely to now be paying close attention to these developments. For example, telecare is the highest risk category, but many organisations still have legacy analogue dependencies, including alarm systems, lift phones, payment terminals and monitored entry systems. As the Virgin Media case shows, identifying those dependencies early is essential to ensure continuity during migration.

How Significant Is This Penalty?

The penalty sits among Ofcom’s larger fines in recent years. It is smaller than the £50 million fine issued to Royal Mail in 2018 and the £42 million penalty imposed on BT in 2017, but it is one of Ofcom’s largest decisions involving consumer protection rather than competition or technical service breaches.

What sets this case apart, however, is its focus on vulnerability and safety. Ofcom has made clear that the digital switchover cannot be treated as a purely technical exercise, particularly where safety critical devices are involved. Providers must be able to demonstrate that they have identified every customer who relies on telecare or similar services and that they have a safe, verified plan for migrating them.

Implications For Rivals And The Wider PSTN Switchover

The decision arrives during a complex national transition. Telecoms providers, government and industry bodies have agreed new charters and non voluntary migration checklists designed to strengthen protections for vulnerable customers. These include new expectations around individual risk assessments, enhanced contact attempts and safeguards before any disconnection can take place.

Other major providers have already had to revise their own migration plans in response to concerns about telecare reliability. The Virgin Media case is likely to intensify scrutiny across the sector, as Ofcom has made clear that it will not hesitate to take enforcement action if providers cannot demonstrate that vulnerable customers are being safeguarded.

Questions And Criticisms

The decision has raised several points of debate. For example, one relates to the absence of direct compensation, since the fine goes to the Treasury rather than to affected customers or local authorities who may have had to respond to incidents during the switchover. Ofcom’s role in this case is enforcement rather than redress, which means affected users will not receive direct financial support through this process.

Another issue is whether the failures identified at Virgin Media point to a broader challenge for the sector. Telecare providers, charities and parliamentary committees have continued to highlight confusion about responsibilities during migration, particularly where equipment manufacturers, care providers and telecoms companies all play different roles in keeping telecare services working.

There are also concerns that awareness among small businesses and property managers remains low. For example, even organisations not directly involved in health or social care may still rely on analogue lines for alarms, access systems or monitoring equipment without realising the implications of the switchover. The Virgin Media enforcement action is likely to prompt renewed calls for clearer guidance, more proactive industry communication and closer coordination with equipment suppliers.

What Happens Next?

Virgin Media has already paused and redesigned parts of its migration process. The company is now operating under updated policies, a revised engagement model for telecare users and closer regulatory oversight.

Ofcom is continuing to issue guidance on how providers should handle the remainder of the PSTN switch off. This includes expectations around vulnerability assessments, business continuity planning and coordination with emergency services, local authorities and telecare operators.

The case is likely to remain a reference point for months to come as organisations, regulators and telecoms companies navigate the final stages of the UK’s shift to digital landline services.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This enforcement decision leaves the sector with a clearer sense of what regulators expect during the remainder of the switchover. Virgin Media’s failings were specific, but the underlying challenges are shared across the industry, particularly the difficulty of mapping analogue dependencies and ensuring that every vulnerable user is identified before any change goes ahead. The scale of the fine signals that Ofcom is prepared to act when those responsibilities are not met, which will shape how major providers approach their own migration plans over the next year.

The case also demonstrates why UK businesses should pay closer attention to their remaining reliance on analogue systems. Many organisations have digitalised most of their operations but still depend on a single lift line, alarm system or monitored entry point that uses outdated infrastructure. The disruption experienced by telecare users shows how easily those hidden dependencies can be overlooked and why forward planning is essential. For sectors such as housing, healthcare, facilities management and retail, the risks are not only technical but operational and reputational.

For telecare users, charities and local authorities, the decision provides reassurance that regulators are watching and treating these risks seriously. It also highlights how fragmented responsibilities have made safe migration more complicated. Telecoms providers can update their own processes, but the safety of vulnerable customers also depends on the readiness of equipment manufacturers, monitoring centres and care providers. The outcome may drive more coordinated planning across these groups, which has often been missing.

The broader lesson for the sector is that the digital switchover is not simply a matter of replacing one network with another. It is an exercise in risk management that requires precise data, careful customer engagement and a full understanding of how different services interact with the telecoms network. Virgin Media has now rebuilt much of its process, but the scrutiny it faced is likely to set new expectations for every provider involved in the transition.

As the migration continues, the focus will shift to whether the safeguards now put in place are strong enough to prevent a repeat of the problems uncovered here. The coming months will show whether the industry can maintain the pace of digital upgrade while keeping vulnerable customers protected and giving businesses and public sector bodies the certainty they need to manage their own critical systems.

The post Featured Article : Ofcom Fines Virgin Media £23.8 Million appeared first on Mear Technology.

A National Strategy For Biometrics

The Home Office has launched a ten week consultation to establish a new legal framework covering all police use of facial recognition and biometric technologies. This would replace the current mix of case law and guidance with a single, structured system that applies consistently across forces.

The plan includes creating a dedicated regulator overseeing facial recognition, fingerprints and emerging biometric tools. The Home Office says a single body would provide clarity and help forces apply safeguards more confidently. It also proposes a national facial matching service, allowing officers to run searches against millions of custody images through one central system.

Breakthrough

Launching the consultation, Crime and Policing Minister Sarah Jones said, “Facial recognition is the biggest breakthrough for catching criminals since DNA matching,” adding, “We will expand its use so that forces can put more criminals behind bars and tackle crime in their communities.” Her view reflects the government’s belief that existing deployments have already demonstrated clear operational value, particularly in identifying violent offenders.

Why Now?

The push for expansion comes as police forces face increasing pressure to track offenders across regions and to manage high volumes of video supplied by retailers, businesses and members of the public. Also, recent cases of prisoners being released in error, or disappearing before arrest, have highlighted the difficulty of locating suspects quickly without technological support.

Public Tolerance For Certain Uses

Government research published alongside the consultation appears to suggest high public tolerance for certain uses. For example, according to the government’s figures, 97 per cent of respondents said retrospective facial recognition is at least sometimes acceptable, while 88 per cent said the same about live facial recognition for locating suspects. Ministers may see this as support for building a clearer framework, although rights groups argue that acceptability is dependent on strict safeguards and transparency.

The Need For Oversight

That said, independent accuracy testing has reinforced the need for stronger oversight. For example, the National Physical Laboratory found that earlier systems used in UK policing produced significantly higher false alert rates for Black and Asian people. The Home Office now acknowledges these disparities, noting that updated systems and reviews have since been introduced. Even so, the findings have shaped calls for clearer legal boundaries before expansion proceeds.

When These Changes Might Take Effect

The consultation runs through early 2026, after which ministers will draft legislation for parliamentary scrutiny. The Home Office estimates that introducing a new legal regime, establishing the regulator and deploying the national facial matching service will take around two years. During that period, existing deployments will continue under current guidance.

Police forces already using live facial recognition, including the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police, will continue targeted deployments. Trials using mobile facial recognition vans across multiple forces are also expected to continue, and the national facial matching service is scheduled for testing in 2026.

How The Technology Works Across UK Forces Today

Police currently rely on three distinct facial recognition tools, each supporting different operational needs, which are:

1. Retrospective facial recognition. Used during investigations, this compares still images from CCTV, doorbell cameras, mobile footage or social media against custody images. It is the most widely used form, and police say it speeds up identification in cases where investigators have a clear image but no confirmed identity.

2. Live facial recognition. These systems scan faces in real time as people pass a camera. The software compares each face to a watchlist of individuals wanted for specific offences or subject to court conditions. When a possible match arises, officers decide whether to stop the person. Deployments are usually short, targeted and focused on high footfall areas.

3. Operator initiated facial recognition. This mobile app allows officers to check identity during encounters by comparing a photo to custody images, avoiding unnecessary trips to a station solely for identification.

Police leaders say these tools allow forces to locate wanted individuals more efficiently. Lindsey Chiswick, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for facial recognition, says the technology “makes officers more effective and delivers more arrests than would otherwise be possible”, adding that “public trust is vital, and we want to build on that by listening to people’s views”.

Legal And Ethical Issues

Legal concerns have followed facial recognition since its earliest deployments, and several landmark rulings continue to shape how police use the technology. For example, back in 2020, a Court of Appeal ruling in the Ed Bridges case remains the most significant legal challenge to date. In this case, the court found that South Wales Police’s early use of live facial recognition breached privacy rights because of inadequate safeguards, incomplete assessments and insufficient checks on whether the system discriminated against particular groups.

Also, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has criticised aspects of earlier Metropolitan Police deployments, saying forces must demonstrate necessity and proportionality each time. The Information Commissioner’s Office has also warned forces to ensure accuracy and justify the retention of custody images belonging to people never convicted of an offence.

Accuracy Problems

Accuracy remains central to the ethical debate. For example, the National Physical Laboratory found that in one system previously used operationally, Asian faces were wrongly flagged around four per cent of the time and Black faces around five and a half per cent, compared with around 0.04 per cent for white faces. For Black women, false alerts rose to nearly ten per cent. These figures show how demographic disparities can emerge in real deployments and highlight the importance of system configuration.

Rights groups warn that these issues could lead to wrongful stops or reinforce existing inequalities. They also argue that routine scanning in public spaces risks creating a sense of constant surveillance that may influence how people move or gather. Liberty has said it is “disappointed” that expansion is being planned before the risks are fully resolved, while Big Brother Watch has urged a pause during the consultation.

Support Strong From Police

It’s worth noting here that, perhaps not surprisingly, support within policing remains strong. For example, former counter terror policing lead Neil Basu says live facial recognition is “a massive step forward for law enforcement, a digital 21st century step change in the tradition of fingerprint and DNA technology”, while noting that it “will still require proper legal safeguards and oversight by the surveillance commissioner”. Police forces repeatedly stress that every alert is reviewed by an officer rather than acted on automatically.

Industry Supports Structured Rollout

Industry organisations also appear to support a structured rollout. For example, Sue Daley, Director of Tech and Innovation at techUK, says “regulation clarity, certainty and consistency on how this technology will be used will be paramount to establish trust and long term public support”. The technology sector argues that clear rules will help build confidence both inside and outside policing.

Charities

Charities focused on vulnerable people have also highlighted some potential benefits. For example, Susannah Drury of Missing People says facial recognition “could help to ensure more missing people are found, protecting people from serious harm”, though she also stresses the need to examine ethical implications before expanding use.

That said, civil liberties groups continue to call for stronger limits, arguing that wider deployment risks normalising biometric scanning in everyday spaces unless strict rules are imposed regarding watchlists, retention and operational necessity.

Areas For Further Debate

The proposals raise questions that will remain live throughout the consultation period. For example, these include how forces will define and maintain watchlists, how the new regulator will enforce safeguards, what thresholds will apply before live facial recognition can be deployed, and how demographic accuracy will be monitored over time. Businesses that operate high footfall environments, such as shopping centres and transport hubs, are also likely to face questions about how their video systems might interact with police requests as adoption increases.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It seems that, following this announcement from the government, policymakers now face a moment where practical policing needs, public confidence and legal safeguards must be aligned in a way that has not been achieved before. The consultation sets out an ambition for national consistency and clearer rules, although the evidence presented across this debate shows that accuracy, oversight and transparency will determine whether expansion strengthens trust or undermines it. The range of views from policing, civil liberties groups, industry and charities illustrates how differently this technology is experienced, and why the government will need to resolve issues that sit well beyond technical capability alone.

The implications extend into policing culture, investigative practice and public space management, which will all look different if facial recognition becomes a mainstream tool. Forces anticipate faster identifications, clearer procedures and more reliable ways to locate individuals who pose a genuine risk. Civil society groups, by contrast, point to the potential for overreach unless firm limits are embedded in law. These competing priorities will shape how the regulator operates and how the Home Office interprets proportionality in real deployments.

Businesses also sit at the centre of this discussion because they capture and provide a significant volume of the video footage used in retrospective searches. Retailers, transport hubs and major venues may face new expectations about how they store, secure and share images, and these responsibilities may grow as facial matching becomes more accurate and more widely used. Clearer rules could help organisations understand how to cooperate with investigations without exposing themselves to unnecessary compliance risks, particularly around data protection and equality duties.

The wider public interest lies in how these decisions affect everyday life. Public attitudes will depend on whether safeguards are visible, whether wrongful identifications are prevented, and whether live deployments remain tightly focused rather than becoming a routine feature of public spaces. A national framework could provide that reassurance if it genuinely addresses the concerns raised during testing and legal review. The coming months will show how far the government is prepared to go in defining those boundaries and whether the final model satisfies the mix of operational urgency and ethical caution that has defined this debate so far.

The post Featured Article : Government Plans Major Expansion Of Facial Recognition appeared first on Mear Technology.

Petition

Interestingly, a petition on the UK Government’s site : https://petition.parliament.uk/ had attracted approaching three million signatures of people opposed to the bill, within a week of the announcement being made.

Rolled out by 2029

The Prime Minister has confirmed that a new digital identity scheme will be introduced across the UK by 2029, with every citizen and legal resident required to use a digital ID to prove their right to work.

Mandatory

The new ID will be free and optional for those not seeking employment, but will be compulsory for anyone taking up paid work. The government says it will replace paper documents and National Insurance numbers for right-to-work checks, with full implementation expected before the next general election. The government also says that, by law, this must take place no later than August 2029.

What Form Will It Take?

The government says the digital ID will be a secure, app-based credential stored on people’s mobile phones using the GOV.UK Wallet system. It will include core personal information such as name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photo. The app will act as a proof of identity and legal right to work, with data encrypted and held directly on the user’s device.

The system has been designed to allow users to share only the information needed in each situation, for example, confirming eligibility to work without revealing unrelated personal details. If a phone is lost or stolen, the credential can be revoked remotely and reissued.

The government says this will replace the need to provide paper copies of documents such as passports or residence permits, and will become the standard method of proving work eligibility across the UK labour market.

Why?

The government says the scheme is designed to reduce illegal working, deter unauthorised migration, and improve the consistency of identity checks. Ministers argue that illegal employment remains a key draw for people entering the UK without permission, and that a digital system will make enforcement more effective.

The new ID is also framed as a broader tool for improving access to public services. It is hoped that over time, it could be used to simplify applications for childcare, benefits, driving licences, and tax records, although these uses will be optional, not mandatory.

In a statement issued through Downing Street, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.”

However, some opponents believe the move is motivated more by political positioning than practical enforcement. For example, with pressure mounting over small boat crossings and immigration policy, privacy campaigners argue that the scheme could have been designed primarily to reassure voters rather than address the root causes of illegal working.

Previous attempts

It should be noted here that this is not the first time a UK government has proposed a national identity scheme. Back in the early 2000s, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair introduced plans for a physical ID card, which became law in 2006. The cards were intended to help combat terrorism, immigration abuse, and benefit fraud, and were linked to a central National Identity Register.

However, the scheme faced widespread opposition on civil liberties grounds and was criticised for being expensive, intrusive, and ineffective. In 2010, the incoming Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government scrapped the programme and destroyed the database. At the time, the Home Secretary called it a “high-cost, high-risk” scheme that offered little public benefit.

Although the new digital ID plan differs in format, with no central identity register and no requirement to carry or show ID in public, it seems that many of the same concerns about privacy and state overreach have re-emerged.

Encrypted

Although the digital ID will be held on a person’s phone in the form of a secure app-based wallet, similar to the NHS app or mobile payment cards, it will use encrypted, on-device storage so that if a phone is lost, the credential can be immediately revoked and reissued.

For Working Legally

Current right-to-work rules already require employers to check and retain copies of identity documents, such as passports or biometric residence permits, or to use the Home Office online service. Civil penalties for non-compliance can be up to £60,000 per illegal worker for repeat offences.

Ministers say the new digital ID will therefore reduce the risk of fraud, speed up hiring, and close off loopholes that currently allow the use of borrowed or forged documents. It is also intended to help enforcement agencies identify patterns of non-compliance across the labour market, including in casual and gig economy roles.

According to the Cabinet Office, “a new streamlined digital system to check right to work will simplify the process, drive up compliance, crack down on forged documents and create intelligence data on businesses.”

Border Security

The policy has also been presented by the Prime Minister as a key part of the government’s approach to tackling illegal migration (which has been much in the news lately). In a statement issued through Downing Street, he said: “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.”

He added: “We are doing the hard graft to deliver a fairer Britain for those who want to see change, not division. That is at the heart of our Plan for Change.”

Ministers argue that access to informal work is a major incentive for people entering the country without permission. By requiring all legal workers to use digital ID, the government hopes to reduce the so-called “pull factor” of illegal employment.

What Is (And Isn’t) Required

The government says the digital ID will be required only for those seeking paid employment. There are no plans to require it for everyday activities such as accessing healthcare or public spaces, and people will not be expected to carry proof of identity at all times. For example, the government materials explicitly state that “there will be no requirement for individuals to carry their ID or be asked to produce it” outside of employment-related checks.

However, the digital ID is expected to become increasingly useful for other tasks, such as accessing childcare, welfare, or tax records. It’s understood these uses will be optional, with ministers presenting them as convenience features rather than legal requirements.

Access And Inclusion

While the system is designed primarily for smartphone use, ministers have also confirmed that physical alternatives will be made available for people who are digitally excluded. This may include older people, those experiencing homelessness, or individuals without regular access to internet-connected devices.

Consultation Planned

A formal public consultation will launch later this year, seeking input on how to design the system inclusively. The government says this will include engagement with charities and local authorities, as well as face-to-face outreach and support services.

The Cabinet Office says the aim is to create “a service that takes the best aspects of the digital identification systems that are already up and running around the world,” while ensuring it “works for those who aren’t able to use a smartphone.”

Used In Other Countries

Some other countries already have working digital ID schemes. Examples of these that the UK’s digital ID model draws on include Estonia, Denmark, Australia, and India. For example:

– In Estonia, citizens use a mandatory digital ID for voting, healthcare, banking, and education, supported by strong encryption and decentralised systems.

– In Denmark, a MitID credential is used for logging into government and banking services, though it is not compulsory for all citizens.

– Australia’s national Digital ID system allows residents to access public services through apps like myGov, with varying levels of identity strength depending on the use case.

– In India, the Aadhaar system assigns a unique biometric ID number to over a billion people, primarily to streamline welfare and reduce fraud.

Ministers say the UK version will focus on privacy by design, with data stored locally on the user’s device and shared selectively.

Public Reaction And Political Response

The announcement has triggered a divided response across the political spectrum. Supporters argue it will modernise outdated systems and improve national security, while opponents say it risks overreach and mission creep.

More than one million people have already signed a Parliamentary petition opposing the introduction of digital ID, with civil liberties groups warning of long-term consequences for personal freedom. For example, Big Brother Watch, a UK-based privacy campaign group, said: “Plans for a mandatory digital ID would make us all reliant on a digital pass to go about our daily lives, turning us into a checkpoint society that is wholly un-British.”

Also, Liberty, the human rights organisation, expressed concern, stating that the proposals raise “huge concerns about mass surveillance” and could increase barriers for vulnerable people trying to access work or support.

Opposition politicians have also criticised both the scale of the scheme and the lack of debate. For example, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has questioned the cost, saying the government should focus on better enforcement of existing laws. The SNP and Northern Ireland’s First Minister have also raised concerns about the implications for devolved powers and the rights of Irish citizens.

Employers And Service Providers

Businesses will need to adjust their onboarding and compliance processes once the new system is in place. The government says it will issue new guidance and offer integration options, but employers may face practical questions around adoption timelines, system compatibility, and staff training.

The Home Office is expected to update its employer toolkits and codes of practice during the rollout. Officials have said the changes will reduce red tape in the long term but acknowledge that transitional support may be needed.

There is no requirement yet for employers to take any action, but the digital ID scheme is likely to become the default verification method once legislation is passed. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has said it is working with industry groups and software providers to ensure compatibility and reduce disruption.

Security And Safeguards

In terms of security and privacy, according to the Cabinet Office, the digital ID will use “state-of-the-art encryption and user authentication to ensure data is held and accessed securely.” The information will remain under the control of the user, stored on their device and not in a centralised database.

The government says the system is designed to limit personal data sharing, with users able to present only the specific information required for a given situation. For example, an employer might only see proof of work eligibility without accessing unrelated personal details.

If a device is lost or compromised, the credential can be cancelled and reissued. The government says this offers better protection than paper-based documents, which are easier to forge or misuse.

Challenges And Unanswered Questions

Despite assurances around data security and voluntary usage beyond employment, it must be said that there remain some unresolved concerns about the scope and risks of the new digital ID system. For example:

– Inclusion will require careful planning and proper resourcing to ensure fair access for people without smartphones, stable housing, or standard documents.

– Privacy and data safety remain a concern, with campaigners warning that even encrypted systems are not immune to hacking or misuse.

– Cost and complexity are still unclear, as the government has not yet published a full estimate of programme costs or explained how the rollout will be phased.

– Public trust will be critical, especially given the level of opposition from civil liberties groups and the wider concerns already raised across Parliament.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

If delivered effectively, it’s possible to see how a digital ID scheme could bring some long-term operational benefits to UK businesses, i.e. by reducing the administrative burden of right-to-work checks and making fraud harder to commit. A single, standardised credential could simplify hiring, especially in sectors where temporary or remote onboarding is common. Employers, however, will want clear timelines, technical support, and assurance that they won’t be exposed to new liabilities during the transition.

Public reaction to the scheme is likely to remain mixed. While those in work will be legally required to adopt the new system, others may choose to use it to access public services more easily. The success of the rollout will depend heavily on how well the government delivers inclusive access for people who do not have smartphones or consistent digital connectivity. Ministers have promised support and consultation, but this remains a key point of scrutiny.

However, it’s clear already that the wider political and civil liberties questions are unlikely to go away. Campaigners continue to warn of surveillance risks and creeping functionality, especially if the ID becomes more widely used in everyday life over time. The comparison with previous ID card proposals is unavoidable. Although this version is digital-only, decentralised, and limited in scope, it revives long-standing concerns about privacy and state control.

As with other large digital infrastructure programmes, the practical outcomes will depend on delivery, not just design. That includes building trust, preventing mission creep, and ensuring the system works reliably in the real world. For now, businesses and citizens alike will be watching closely as the consultation opens and the legislation begins its passage through Parliament.

The post Featured Article : Mandatory UK Digital ID Mandatory By 2029 appeared first on Mear Technology.

Proposed Law Aims to Outlaw Future Crime Predictions

At the centre of the debate is New Clause 30 (NC30), an amendment tabled by Green MP Siân Berry and backed by at least eight others, including Labour’s Clive Lewis and Zarah Sultana. If passed, the clause would explicitly prohibit UK police from using artificial intelligence (AI), automated decision-making (ADM), or profiling techniques to predict whether an individual or group is likely to commit a future offence.

Berry told the House of Commons that such systems are “inherently flawed” and represent “a fundamental threat to basic rights,” including the presumption of innocence. “Predictive policing, however cleverly sold, always relies on historic police and public data that is itself biased,” she argued. “It reinforces patterns of over-policing and turns communities into suspects, not citizens.”

What Is Predictive Policing?

Predictive policing refers to the use of data analytics, AI and algorithms to identify patterns that suggest where crimes are likely to occur or which individuals may be at greater risk of offending. It takes two broad forms, i.e. place-based systems that forecast crime in particular geographic locations, and person-based systems that claim to assess the risk posed by individuals.

Already Piloted or Deployed

It’s worth noting that these systems have already been piloted or deployed in over 30 UK police forces. For example, according to a 2025 Amnesty International report, 32 forces were using location-focused tools, while 11 had tested or deployed systems to forecast individual behaviour. The aim, according to police, is to deploy resources more efficiently and prevent crime before it happens.

However, critics argue that the data used to train these systems, such as arrest records, stop-and-search data, and local crime statistics, is historically biased. This, they say, leads to feedback loops where marginalised and heavily policed communities are disproportionately targeted by future interventions.

Why MPs Are Taking a Stand Now

The renewed push for a legislative ban follows a string of revelations over the past 18 months about the growing use of algorithmic policing in the UK, often without public consultation or oversight. One of the most contentious examples was uncovered by Statewatch in 2025, i.e., the Ministry of Justice’s so-called “Homicide Prediction Project”, a system under development to identify individuals at risk of committing murder using sensitive data, including health and domestic abuse records—even in cases where no criminal conviction exists.

Statewatch researcher Sofia Lyall called the initiative “chilling and dystopian,” warning that “using predictive tools built on data about addiction, mental health and disability amounts to highly intrusive profiling” and risks “coding bias directly into policing practice.”

The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill comes as the government continues to expand data-driven law enforcement under new legislation. The Data Use and Access Act (passed earlier this year) permits certain forms of automated decision-making that were previously restricted under the Data Protection Act 2018. More than 30 civil society groups, including Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, Inquest and Amnesty, have signed a joint letter condemning the changes and calling for a ban on predictive policing to be included in the new bill.

Bias, Surveillance and Lack of Transparency

At the heart of the pushback is the view that predictive systems do not eliminate human bias, but instead replicate and scale it. As Open Rights Group’s Sara Chitseko explained in a May blog, “historical crime data reflects decades of discriminatory policing, particularly targeting poor neighbourhoods and racialised communities.”

The concern is not just over potential inaccuracies, but the broader impact on civil liberties. Campaigners warn that predictive tools undermine the right to privacy and fuel what they call a “pre-crime surveillance state,” in which individuals can be subjected to policing actions without having committed any crime.

This can include being flagged for increased surveillance, added to risk registers, or subjected to stop-and-search, all based on algorithmic assessments that may be impossible to scrutinise. Data from these tools is often shared across public bodies, meaning individuals can be affected in housing, education, or welfare decisions as a result of hidden profiling.

55 Automated Tools Identified

Researchers at the Public Law Project, which runs the Tracking Automated Government (TAG) register, have documented over 55 automated decision-making tools used across UK government departments, including policing. Many operate without publicly available data protection or equality assessments. Legal Director Ariane Adam said, “People deserve to know if a decision about their lives is being made by an opaque algorithm—and have a way to challenge it if it’s wrong.”

How the Crime and Policing Bill Fits In

The Crime and Policing Bill is part of a broader effort by the UK government to modernise policing powers and criminal justice processes. While not specifically focused on predictive technologies, the bill’s scope includes provisions for police data access, surveillance capabilities and crime prevention strategies.

Critics argue that without clear prohibitions, the bill risks giving predictive systems greater legitimacy. “Predictive policing isn’t just a technical tool—it’s a fundamental shift in the presumption of innocence,” said Berry. “We need the law to say clearly: you cannot be punished for something you haven’t done, just because a computer says you might.”

A second proposed amendment from Berry seeks to provide safeguards where automated decisions are used in policing. This would include a legal right to request human review, improved transparency over the use of algorithms, and meaningful routes for redress.

What the Police and Government Are Saying

Police forces and government departments have largely defended their use of predictive technologies, arguing that they allow for more proactive policing. For example, the Home Office has supported initiatives such as GRIP, a place-based prediction system used by 20 forces since 2021 to identify high-crime areas.

Proponents claim these tools help reduce violence and make best use of limited resources. However, recent assessments suggest the benefits may be overstated. Amnesty found “no conclusive evidence” that GRIP had reduced crime, while also warning it had “reinforced racial profiling” in the communities it targeted.

The government has not yet formally responded to the proposed amendments. However, officials have previously argued that AI and ADM can be used responsibly with the right oversight. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s 2023 White Paper on AI governance promoted voluntary transparency standards but fell short of recommending statutory controls.

Businesses and Civil Society

If the amendment banning predictive policing passes, it could reshape how AI and automation are used across public services, not just policing. For civil society and legal groups, it would mark a significant win for rights-based governance of AI.

For businesses working in AI, data analytics and security tech, the implications are mixed. Suppliers of predictive systems to police forces may lose a key customer base, while developers of ethical or human-in-the-loop systems could find new demand for tools that meet stricter legal standards.

More broadly, companies operating in sectors such as insurance, HR tech, or public procurement may face growing scrutiny over how their algorithms are used to assess individuals, particularly if they supply services to the government. A legislative ban on predictive policing could signal the start of tighter controls on high-risk ADM across all sectors.

Cybersecurity professionals and data governance officers may also need to reassess compliance strategies, especially where their systems intersect with law enforcement or public sector clients.

The challenge, according to legal analysts, is ensuring any ban does not create ambiguity. “There’s a fine line between banning profiling-based prediction and stifling responsible innovation,” said one lawyer familiar with the TAG project. “Clear definitions and thresholds will be vital.”

Key Obstacles to Progress

Even with growing public and parliamentary concern, the road to banning predictive policing is unlikely to be smooth. One challenge is technical, i.e. there’s no consensus on what exactly counts as “predictive policing,” given the variety of tools and methods involved.

There’s also the legal complexity of drawing lines between fully automated systems and those that merely assist human decision-making. As with facial recognition and biometric surveillance, courts and regulators have struggled to keep pace with the technology.

Policymakers face a political challenge too: calls for stronger law and order measures remain popular with some voters, and banning high-tech crime-fighting tools may be portrayed as soft on crime. Opponents of the amendment are likely to argue that police need every available advantage to tackle modern threats, including gang violence, knife crime and terrorism.

However, it seems that the tide may be turning. As Berry put it in her Commons speech: “This is a moment to decide what kind of society we want to be—one where we protect rights and freedoms, or one where we criminalise people before they’ve done anything wrong.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Whether or not the amendment to ban predictive policing is adopted, the pressure now facing the UK government reflects a growing public and parliamentary appetite for more robust oversight of AI and algorithmic decision-making. The evidence presented by civil rights groups, legal experts and academics points to a consistent pattern where predictive systems are deployed without transparency or accountability, the result is often discrimination and deep mistrust in public institutions.

For police forces, this moment raises urgent questions about how data is collected, analysed and applied. Even if predictive systems are well-intentioned, their reliance on flawed historical datasets and opaque algorithms makes it difficult to separate operational efficiency from systemic bias. Without clear legal limits, the use of such technologies could further entrench inequalities and reduce trust in frontline policing.

The implications extend far beyond law enforcement. For example, businesses involved in AI development, analytics or public sector contracting will need to stay alert to changing expectations around transparency, fairness and accountability. A legal ban on predictive policing could signal broader regulatory moves against high-risk algorithmic profiling, especially where sensitive or personal data is involved. Companies that rely on such tools in recruitment, risk scoring or fraud detection may need to rethink how their systems operate and how they explain them to clients and users.

For civil society and campaigners, the bill presents a rare chance to press for hard legal safeguards rather than soft ethical guidelines. The current momentum suggests that arguments grounded in lived experience, statistical evidence and human rights law are starting to gain traction in parliamentary debates.

What happens next will shape the relationship between data, power and the public for years to come. Whether through this bill or a future AI-specific law, the UK faces a clear choice: allow automated prediction to quietly redefine policing, or legislate to ensure that new technologies serve justice without undermining it.

The post Featured Article : MPs Concern : ‘Predictive Policing’ in UK appeared first on Mear Technology.

Debate Ignited

The decision, which sees one of the world’s leading tech companies bowing out of a security standoff, has ignited debates over digital privacy, national security, and the future of encryption standards in the UK and beyond.

What is the Advanced Data Protection Tool?

Advanced Data Protection is Apple’s most robust encryption feature, providing end-to-end encryption for users’ iCloud data, including photos, notes, and backups. With ADP enabled, only the account holder can access this information, not even Apple itself can decrypt the data. The feature, introduced globally in late 2022, was designed to offer users greater control and protection against data breaches and cyber-attacks.

However, unlike standard encryption, which allows Apple to access certain user data when presented with a valid legal request, ADP closes off even this possibility. This heightened level of security made it particularly attractive to privacy-conscious users, but it has now become the focal point of a growing dispute between Apple and the UK government.

The UK’s Demand for Access (A ‘Back Door’)

Apple’s decision follows a demand from the UK government, issued under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), which compels companies to provide data access to law enforcement agencies when legally requested. While Apple has long opposed creating “backdoors” into its systems, arguing that any intentional vulnerability could be exploited by cybercriminals, the UK’s insistence on access led to an impasse.

The UK government has not officially confirmed issuing a formal notice under the IPA, maintaining its policy of not commenting on operational matters. However, some media commentators have suggested that UK government pressure has been escalating behind the scenes, and may now have prompted Apple to withdraw ADP for UK customers entirely.

Apple’s Disappointment

In a strongly worded statement, Apple has expressed deep disappointment at having to disable ADP for UK users, and has said: “As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products, and we never will.”

The company has also highlighted the broader implications of weakening encryption, arguing that such actions would endanger all users by creating vulnerabilities exploitable by malicious actors or cybercriminals. Apple’s stance reflects a broader concern shared by many cybersecurity experts and privacy advocates who fear that undermining encryption in one country could set a dangerous global precedent.

What This Means for UK Apple Users

Apple’s decision essentially means that any Apple user in the UK now attempting to enable ADP will simply receive an error message. Existing users who had previously activated the feature will also see it disabled in the coming weeks.

It seems that while some forms of encryption remain intact (i.e. iMessages, FaceTime communications, and sensitive health data stored on iCloud) and will continue to be protected by end-to-end encryption, while other data types (such as full device backups and photos stored in iCloud) will no longer enjoy the same level of security in the UK. Under standard encryption, Apple retains the ability to access these files and could be compelled to share them with law enforcement upon receipt of a valid warrant.

Security vs. Privacy

The UK government’s push to weaken end-to-end encryption has sparked fierce opposition from privacy campaigners and cybersecurity experts. For example, Professor Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity specialist at the University of Surrey, has been quoted as describing the move as “an act of self-harm” by the government, adding: “All the UK government has achieved is to weaken online security and privacy for UK-based users.”

However, the UK government claims its perspective has been driven by concerns around national security and child protection. This view is supported by some relevant organisations. For example, Rani Govender, policy manager for child safety online at the NSPCC, has been quoted as arguing that encryption could allow offenders to operate undetected, saying: “End-to-end encryption allows offenders to groom and manipulate children and build communities where they can share vile child sexual abuse material without detection.”

It seems, therefore, that the tension between privacy and protection is a delicate balance for tech firms operating under diverse international legal frameworks.

International Backlash and Global Ramifications

Apple’s withdrawal of ADP in the UK has drawn sharp criticism from global privacy advocates and even US lawmakers. For example, Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (from Oregon) has been quoted as calling the move a “dangerous precedent” that authoritarian governments could exploit to justify similar demands in their own jurisdictions.

The broader concern appears to be that once a tech company concedes to one government’s demands for weakened encryption, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist similar pressures from other nations, including those with less regard for human rights and privacy.

Competitors and Market Impact

Apple’s decision could also have repercussions across the wider technology sector. Competitors like Google, Meta (formerly Facebook), and WhatsApp (which also rely on end-to-end encryption) may now face mounting pressure from governments to implement similar data access measures. WhatsApp head Will Cathcart has warned that any weakening of encryption standards would compromise user security worldwide, saying: “If the UK forces a global backdoor into Apple’s security, it will make everyone in every country less safe.”

Also, the decision could erode consumer trust among UK users who are particularly conscious of (and value) their data privacy. Tech-savvy consumers may seek alternatives that continue to offer uncompromised encryption features, potentially benefiting companies headquartered in jurisdictions with stronger privacy protections.

The Future of Encryption in the UK

For now, it seems that, despite its current disappointment, Apple remains hopeful that it will be able to reinstate ADP in the UK in the future. In its official statement, the company highlighted its commitment to user privacy, saying: “Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end encryption is more urgent than ever before.”

However, the ongoing dispute highlights the growing tension between governments seeking broader surveillance powers and technology firms defending user privacy. As the legal and ethical debate continues, UK consumers are left grappling with the uncomfortable reality of diminished digital protections in an increasingly interconnected world.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

Apple’s removal of Advanced Data Protection (ADP) in the UK is a significant moment in the ongoing global debate over privacy, security, and governmental oversight. While the decision may seem like a straightforward technical adjustment, its broader implications touch upon issues of individual privacy rights, corporate responsibility, and the balance of power between governments and multinational technology firms.

At its core, this move by Apple highlights the increasing pressure technology companies face when navigating conflicting legal frameworks across different jurisdictions. Apple’s steadfast refusal to implement backdoors, despite mounting governmental pressure, aligns with its long-standing commitment to user privacy. However, by disabling ADP for UK users, Apple has effectively signalled that even the most privacy-focused companies must sometimes yield to local laws and regulatory demands, no matter how much they contradict the company’s own policies.

For UK businesses and organisations, this development raises immediate and pressing concerns. Companies that handle sensitive data (such as those in finance, healthcare, or legal sectors) may now find themselves at greater risk of data breaches or unauthorised access. With the most robust form of encryption disabled, organisations may need to reconsider their data protection strategies. This could mean investing in alternative security measures or exploring third-party services that still offer uncompromised encryption. Also, businesses that work internationally may find the regulatory discrepancy between the UK and other regions increasingly difficult to navigate, potentially leading to compliance headaches and increased operational costs.

On the international stage, the ripple effects of Apple’s decision may be far-reaching. Other governments, especially those with poor human rights records, could view this development as an opportunity to justify their own demands for weakened encryption. In this light, the UK’s stance may inadvertently contribute to a global erosion of digital privacy standards, emboldening authoritarian regimes to push for similar concessions from tech companies.

For consumers, the removal of ADP is a reminder of the fragile nature of digital privacy in an age of heightened governmental surveillance. Those in the UK who value strong encryption protections may begin to seek alternatives, potentially favouring services or platforms based in countries with stricter privacy laws. This shift could have longer-term consequences for Apple’s market share in the UK and could drive innovation among competitors aiming to fill the void left by ADP’s removal.

The post Featured Article : Apple Stops Advanced Data Protection Feature in the UK appeared first on Mear Technology.