Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered online anonymity and anonymous abuse.

In recent weeks, we have been rightly concerned about safety in our towns and cities, yet people face danger and harassment not just in the physical world, but on the dark cyber streets and alleyways of the internet. Cowardly keyboard warriors stalk these streets and lurk in our phones. They bully with abandon, they spread racist and misogynistic abuse, they attack looks, weight, age, race, gender, disability, success as well as failure and the young and old alike. No one is safe from their violent hate. Anonymity provides the shadows where these people can hide. It facilitates and encourages online abuse.

My own experience of hate came after the birth of my daughter last year. The outpouring of venom because I took four weeks’ maternity leave was a shock. Attacking somebody for being a mum or suggesting that a mum cannot do the job of an MP is misogynistic and, quite frankly, ridiculous. But I would be lying if I said that I did not find it very upsetting, especially at a time when I could barely move and needed to work out how to feed my new baby. Other people have suffered more—from death and rape threats to all forms of intimidation and harassment in between. Nobody should have to put up with that. Seeing the bravery with which others have confronted this menace has prompted me to campaign for change, and I am not alone.

The racism and abuse levelled at footballers is no longer from the terraces. Many England players who will run out for us tomorrow night have suffered unspeakable racist abuse. I fully support Harry Maguire’s calls for verified identification. I have spoken to the FA’s excellent Kick It Out, which has superb goals for social media companies to create robust and swift measures to take down abusive material, and for investigating authorities swiftly to identify the originators.

Katie Price launched a petition only a few weeks ago that already has over 160,000 signatures.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on this incredibly important issue. Will she join me in paying tribute to Katie, who is my constituent? She is a mum battling for her disabled son who is often abused online. Her petition makes the very sensible proposal to end online anonymity. No one has a right to a cloak to conceal their actions of harm. Both Katie’s petition and my hon. Friend’s own great work in this area deserve the support of the whole House.

[Siobhan Baillie]

I thank my hon. Friend; it was very kind of him to set up a meeting between me, Katie and her mum Amy. We talked about her experiences of the trolls. What they have been through is absolutely heartbreaking. Harvey has been subject to the most vile abuse, which I actually cannot bring myself to say. This has gone on his whole life. The strength with which he and his family have endured these issues is remarkable. Any mother would want to protect her children and we must arm parents with the tools to do just that.

In Stroud, a robust military veteran has had years of deliberate online attempts to ruin his business and reputation. It has nearly broken him mentally at times. The Facebook page that attacks him has a spare one in case the first gets taken down. Another constituent has endured years of stalking and harassment. She is a retired social worker. She has found the police ill equipped to deal with such fast-moving tech, and even when the perpetrators put a picture of her garage door up online—indicating they knew where she lived—she still felt unprotected. A Gloucestershire journalist was recently told by an anonymous loon that she is single because she

“is self absorbed and looks like a slut”.

I have done enough domestic violence work as a lawyer to know that such attitudes and language are a short hop, skip and jump to violence.

Of course, not all online nastiness is anonymous. One named man said of me on Facebook last week:

“She should be banished from our lovely Stroud…years ago she’d have been shot on the spot for her arrogance and hypocrisy…yet people voted for the ass licking vile piece of slime.”

Lovely—and I could go on and on. I do not have enough time to properly address other reports of dangerous antisemitism, fake news, vaccine misinformation, deliberate reputation ruining and online fraud. That is on top of the daily legal but harmful harassing-type behaviour, plus posts that have the veneer of a justified challenge but are really just deliberately spiking pile-ons and hate.

Constituents I have spoken to are clear that the reporting does not work, the cost of legal remedies are out of the reach of normal people and the law needs updating. We need to make social media known more for the good in our society, rather than as a toxic, unsafe hellhole. The Government’s online harms work, though overdue, is to be commended as a huge step in the right direction. That legislation will require media platforms to take more effective actions against abuse, whether it is anonymous or not. Its aims of protecting children and empowering adults to stay safe online are noble, yet the White Paper barely addresses the issue of anonymity. There were no specific consultation questions about the issue. That should be rectified without delay.

As it stands, tech companies do not know who millions of their users are. No matter how good their intentions, the lack of basic information means that any attempt to police platforms and bring offenders to justice is a painful process, if it happens at all. Ofcom’s hands will be tied behind its back before it even starts.

I do not propose the banning of anonymous accounts. There are great benefits in anonymity that I know other Members will speak passionately about today. I would like to see tech companies move on this issue, as we should not always need the Government to intervene, although sadly it currently looks like they will have to.

Three simple steps would go a long way to prevent, deter and reduce online abuse. First, we should give social media users the option to verify their identity. Secondly, we should make it easy for everybody to see whether or not a user has chosen to verify their identity. Members of this House already use that function—my Twitter account has a prominent blue tick next to it, thereby providing confidence that the account is genuine and my details have been checked. Verification works: we should make it available to all. Finally, we should give users the option to block communication, comments and other interaction from unverified users as a category, if they wish.

Some people argue that such moves would undermine freedom of speech, but I disagree. No one would be prevented from using another name or being “Princess What’s-her-chops”, but it would make it harder for online abusers to hide in the shadows if they cause mayhem. Importantly, it would make abusers easier to catch and give social media users the power of choice. Some will be happy to interact with unverified users; others will not. But there must be a choice.

In any event, what greater impediment to freedom of speech is there than people worrying that what they say online will end up in a death threat or a rape threat? What personal freedoms have been lost through the damage done to mental health by online bullying? How many people have already looked at online abuse and hesitated before applying for public-facing jobs, or not applied at all? My proposals would protect freedom of expression and respect the choice of anonymity, but make it harder for abusers to hide in darkness and give individuals new powers to control how they interact with others. I urge everybody to look up the organisation Clean up the Internet, which was co-founded by one of my constituents, to see the proposals in more detail.

Mr Deputy Speaker, no one should face the abuse and horror that you will hear about today. For the victims of online harm, the abuse is not virtual. It does not stay in cyber-space. It impacts the real lives of real people in the real world. If we fail properly to investigate the impact and options surrounding anonymity, I fear we will render any forthcoming legislation and change—no matter how good it is—out of touch and out of date before the ink is dry. We have the expertise, support and drive to tackle online harms; let us be a beacon of light and illuminate the dark streets of social media. Let us really lead the world on tackling anonymous abuse.

ARM: Foreign Acquisition

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. He makes an important point that I will come on to, but I return to the Government’s position, because I find their silence slightly ominous. It has only been breached by briefings to selected journalists and, frankly, that does not seem good enough to me.

It would be astonishing if this Government, with all their talk of world-beating test systems and taking back control, considered allowing us to lose further control of one of the only areas of technology in which we are genuinely world-beating and world-leading. It is particularly astonishing that the Government might be prepared to throw away British influence when it represents such a key bargaining chip in trade talks in a post-Brexit era. I do not think any other country in the world would allow such a jewel in the tech crown to be handed over in this way, so I urge the Government to scrutinise the deal carefully and to step in and use powers available to them to impose strict, legally binding conditions.

The sale raises a range of questions and issues of local, national and international significance. I have been raising them for many weeks now, as have trade unions and the co-founders of ARM. We have received little substantial response from Government, although I was pleased to have a direct discussion with Nvidia today. I invite the Minister to provide some answers from the Government’s perspective.

Since the announcement, Nvidia has made promises to keep ARM based in Cambridge, to hire more staff and to retain ARM’s brand, but without any legal guarantees, I fear those remain just promises—doubtless genuinely made—not guarantees. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are seeking legal assurances in this deal to ensure that ARM’s headquarters remain in Cambridge and it retains the some 2,700 jobs it supports in my constituency and across the country? I am sure the Minister will say that it is hardly likely that Nvidia would ditch highly sought-after engineers, but members of Unite have told me that many jobs, particularly in IT, are much more vulnerable. Similarly, I am told that some 300 people in Cambridge work on graphics processors, an area in which Nvidia works. It could be a perfect match, or it could mean rationalisation and job cuts. 

There is little sign of much meaningful consultation with those who work for the company. Having followed the media commentary, it has struck me that those who work for ARM hardly seem to have a voice—a doleful consequence, I fear, of a largely non-unionised workforce. The money may be good, but when it comes to times such as this, the value of having professional negotiators acting on one’s behalf becomes apparent. I am grateful for the strong interventions from not only Unite but Prospect, which also has members at ARM. I have a further question: will the Minister confirm that Cambridge will continue to be the company HQ and explain how promises will be enforced? Anyone can make promises, but will they be kept? How will they be enforced? The deal will affect jobs not just now but in the future, and could have serious ramifications.

ARM’s current business model has been highly successful. It is based on remaining neutral in the tech market and licensing chip designs to any chip maker that wants them. ARM’s co-founder Hermann Hauser has warned that although SoftBank was able to maintain ARM’s neutrality, Nvidia is different: it is a chip maker itself, so companies using ARM will now find themselves as competitors with its parent company. Some could start to seek alternatives. Nvidia has said that it will maintain ARM’s neutrality, but we have no legal assurances. Will the Government be seeking assurances that ARM’s unique business model—and so its success—will be secured?

The sale has implications both internationally and diplomatically. If ARM becomes a subsidiary of the American company Nvidia, we will in effect be handing over control to the current US Government, as it could become subject to their foreign investment regulatory committee, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The Trump Administration will then ultimately hold the reins over which countries use the technology—which is used in almost all mobile phone chips in the world—and where it will be possible to export it.

It is quite clear that Trump has no qualms about interfering in the operations of tech companies to pursue his own foreign policy goals. Chinese tech companies have already voiced concerns that American ownership of ARM could jeopardise access to ARM technologies for their businesses. Some may not be bothered about that, but it highlights the real role that this UK-located tech giant plays in the international struggle for technological sovereignty.

We need guarantees that ARM is not going to be embroiled in American trade wars and that decisions over this key technology are not completely lost to us. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said:

“The sale of @Arm raises questions of sovereignty. Control of tech is an essential element of independence and @UKParliament will have no say on the CFIUS decisions that go to the US President alone.”

I agree. To safeguard the UK’s interests, we need clear conditions on the takeover to exempt ARM’s tech from intrusive US regulations.

The takeover comes more than a year after the Government’s telecoms supply chain review report, in which the Government committed to diversifying the UK telecommunication supply chain. Since then, a plan to do just that has repeatedly been promised and repeatedly been delayed. Will the Minister explain just how selling this UK-headquartered, world-leading telecoms supplier to a competitor supports the diversification of the supply chain?

I understand that the Government say they are looking into the takeover and that Ministers are considering whether to refer it to the Competition and Markets Authority. I also appreciate that Government policy is in a state of flux, with a pattern of tech businesses being taken over, the status of the industrial strategy unclear, and the national security and investment Bill yet to be published, so we have to use what we have. The Government have the power to impose conditions on such takeovers if they threaten national security or financial stability, which the selling of ARM to Nvidia clearly does.

I appreciate that the Minister who will respond to this debate is the Minister for Digital and Culture, not a Minister from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Minister for Security—that serves to highlight the complexity of the issue. Last time, the Chancellor took ownership; we need the same again. We need a coherent, cross-Government response, led from the top. I urge the Minister to consider such issues carefully, make the case to her colleagues and wake up to the threat that the deal poses unless strict, legally binding conditions are applied.

In conclusion, will the Minister confirm today whether it is the Government’s intention to refer the takeover to the Competition and Markets Authority? Do the Government intend to place clear conditions on the deal to guarantee that ARM’s HQ will stay in Cambridge; that jobs will be protected; that its unique business model will be secured; and that its technology will not be a lever in future trade negotiations that this Government have handed to our competitors?

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a half-hour debate. I have not been told that you wish to speak and I am not sure whether the person who is holding the debate has either. You can intervene, but I have not been given notice of anybody else. Have you been told, Daniel Zeichner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate on a subject that is important to his constituents and to all of us. I also congratulate everybody associated with ARM, which is a great British success story of the type that we need more of in this country.

I am an optimist and I believe that ARM will prosper under its new ownership. Nvidia is an exciting company that works on some of the cutting-edge technologies that ARM has excelled in. I hope it will open the world to more opportunities. I welcome, as the hon. Gentleman has, the commitments that have been given to maintain a presence in Cambridge and to build an artificial intelligence centre there.

I also hope that the new owners will enjoy the benefits of operating in the United Kingdom with our adherence to the rule of law and to the English language and the pro-enterprise environment. ARM will also greatly benefit from the Government’s commitment to double investment in science, which is a point of alignment on both sides of the House.

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman on the two things that I think businesses such as ARM need to prosper and thrive. The first is certainty, which is rarely aided when the Government get involved. As the hon. Gentleman will know, ARM made 24 acquisitions to get the business to the place it is in today. If the Government had intervened on those acquisitions, perhaps it would not have been so successful.

Secondly, businesses need access to capital, which used to be one of the great strengths of the United Kingdom. We had a vibrant new listings market that the Hermann Hausers of tomorrow would be looking to. Another unforeseen effect of the Government making an intervention would be that our capital markets would become less attractive, less competitive and less able to foster the ARMs of the future, which is what the Government should seek to do to create the jobs, opportunity and prosperity that the country will need.

Arts, Culture and Heritage: Support Package

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend for the unprecedented package of support that was announced. As she gets into the design of individual components, may I ask her to seek a higher number of individual smaller grants, so that local museums, such as the Amberley Museum, the Arundel Museum and the Steyning Museum in my constituency, get a look in?

[Caroline Dinenage]

It has been like a whistle-stop tour of cultural and arts venues up and down the country today—in fact, I remember visiting the Amberley Museum as a schoolgirl, so it is also a trip down memory lane for me. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that we can get that money to as many grassroots organisations up and down the country as possible to save them from an unpleasant fate.