Zia Yusuf Warns Starmer Is Pushing Britain Towards State Surveillance

Summary: Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf has warned that the Online Safety Act could be used to pressure encrypted messaging apps into deploying “accredited technology” that scans content on users’ devices. He argues this risks undermining privacy and security, while the Government says the focus is tackling child abuse material and terrorism.

Zia Yusuf: “Your phone” could become a surveillance tool

Reform UK figure Zia Yusuf has published a blistering warning about where Britain’s Online Safety Act (OSA) could lead, claiming the framework risks dragging private messaging into the orbit of the state.

His central argument is that powers aimed at the most serious crimes may, in practice, create a pathway to routine monitoring of everyday private communications.

“Sir Keir Starmer is about to turn your smartphone into a government surveillance device.”

1 commentTap to read

What section 121 says in plain English

The row centres on Section 121 of the OSA, which Yusuf says gives Ofcom the power to require platforms to use “accredited technology” to detect illegal content, including child sexual exploitation material and terrorism-related content.

Supporters of the approach argue it is about identifying the most harmful, illegal material and protecting victims, not reading the public’s messages.

Critics argue that, once scanning is required, the practical effect is to weaken the promise of end-to-end encrypted privacy.

“Messages will be analysed on your device, before encryption.”

Client-side scanning: the technical fight behind the politics

Yusuf frames the dispute as a battle over “client-side scanning”, a method that checks content on a user’s device before it is encrypted and sent.

He argues that even if the intent is narrow, the mechanism is broad, and that it shifts the UK closer to a “scan first, trust later” model of private communications.

Technical critics of client-side scanning often argue that building a scanning layer can create new security risks and expands the surface for misuse or exploitation by bad actors.

April 2026 and Ofcom guidance

Yusuf points to ministerial comments about timelines, claiming the Government expects Ofcom to move quickly on guidance and minimum standards for the relevant technology.

That matters because guidance and standards can shape what platforms are effectively forced to build, and how quickly.

“The clock is ticking. Within months, your private conversations will likely be subject to… surveillance.”

Apple, WhatsApp and Signal: why the industry is pushing back

The warning also leans on a broader, ongoing clash between governments and encrypted platforms, with companies repeatedly insisting they will not create “backdoors” that weaken security for everyone.

Yusuf argues the commercial and technical reality is simple: if the UK mandates invasive scanning, some services may reduce features, redesign products, or reconsider their UK offering.

Government ministers, meanwhile, have tended to argue that child protection and national security cannot be treated as optional extras in the digital age.

The politics: Labour inherits a Tory law and gets blamed anyway

One uncomfortable fact for Westminster is that the OSA was passed under the Conservatives, but Labour now owns implementation and enforcement.

That creates a political opening for Reform UK to present itself as the clear anti-surveillance option, while hammering both major parties for centralising power.

For Brexit voters who backed taking back control from Brussels, the argument is emotionally potent: sovereignty is meaningless if the state treats ordinary citizens as suspects by default.

Where this goes next

The core policy question is whether the UK can pursue robust online enforcement against truly illegal content without creating technology mandates that undermine encryption.

Yusuf’s warning is that once a scanning architecture exists, the scope can expand over time via mission creep, political pressure, or changing definitions of “harm”.

The Government’s argument will be that safeguards, oversight and targeting can prevent overreach, and that protecting children and the public requires strong tools.

Either way, this will be a live fight between Westminster, regulators, tech firms and civil liberties campaigners, with Ofcom’s direction of travel likely to decide the temperature of the debate.