How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix • Hacker News Board

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#21

Post by varispeed » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

We have a little forum with a niche community. Few months ago we have closed the registration, because of spam and also because we had people posting questionable stuff and then reporting it to the hosting provider. There is not much money from ads, it barely covers the servers. Moderators do not always have time to react quickly to something stupid.

Probably many other communities will be forced to close with either having to move to Facebook or other privacy hostile platforms.

Then there is EU terreg - we have some members from the EU, so we would have to boot them out or create a legal entity in the EU to process content removal requests as I understand, in a year or so. There is no money for that. Sad times for the internet...

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#22

Post by young_unixer » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:51 PM UTC

______- wrote: post #8

I wish there was some sort of island or safe haven country setup by cryptographers so they could safely work on crypto without legal issues or crypto being seen as a munition and a threat to government. We could call it `01` and have it in a non fourteen-eyes jurisdiction preferably as an independent nation. We could export code containing cryptographic algorithms to countries that need it for privacy and safety reas…

There's Liberland, an attempt at a libertarian country, but it's still far from being an actual country.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#23

Post by varispeed » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:54 PM UTC

______- wrote: post #8

I wish there was some sort of island or safe haven country setup by cryptographers so they could safely work on crypto without legal issues or crypto being seen as a munition and a threat to government. We could call it `01` and have it in a non fourteen-eyes jurisdiction preferably as an independent nation. We could export code containing cryptographic algorithms to countries that need it for privacy and safety reas…

In the UK if you won't give up your password (or essentially give means to decrypt data) when requested you can get 5 years for that. Encryption will not protect against the state in this case. Likely other countries will start to copy that...

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#24

Post by jeena » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

I'm so happy that there are people out there who care about this things and have the time to invest fighting the fight. I would like to be with you there but right now my life doesn't allow the time but I'm totally with you there but only can help by throwing some money on the problem.

But a very big thank you to everyone involved!

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#25

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:55 PM UTC

Arathorn wrote: post #18

One of the most frustrating things about this legislation is that it's set up so that the only outfits with the resources to do the requested censorship would be a GAFAM. Which is utterly perverse, as on one hand the UK govt is despairing about the extent to which the UK is dependent on Big Tech social media and the control they exert on society... whilst simultaneously pushing through legislation which effectively e…

[deleted]

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#26

Post by randompwd » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:58 PM UTC

viktorcode wrote: post #5

Sad to see UK becoming one of the apologists of internet censorship, closing the gap to the levels of authoritarian countries. Once you have censorship facility in place, the area of its application will only grow. The term "illegal information" is also widely used in Russia for the same purpose.

> Sad to see UK becoming one of the apologists of internet censorship

Almost as if, (at this point in time), the benefits of this to the people of the country(not just you) outweigh the negatives...

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#27

Post by mezentius » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:59 PM UTC

______- wrote: post #8

I wish there was some sort of island or safe haven country setup by cryptographers so they could safely work on crypto without legal issues or crypto being seen as a munition and a threat to government. We could call it `01` and have it in a non fourteen-eyes jurisdiction preferably as an independent nation. We could export code containing cryptographic algorithms to countries that need it for privacy and safety reas…

> I wish there was some sort of island or safe haven country setup by cryptographers so they could safely work on crypto without legal issues or crypto being seen as a munition and a threat to government.

This has always been a fascinating concept to me as well — but I think history demonstrates that you can't just set up a safe haven without significant international leverage, whether financial or military. And if you're actively exporting "munitions" to other countries, it's only a matter of time until someone tries to knock you off.

The more likely scenario is that your safe haven will be dependent on a larger nation-state patron—and therefore ultimately vulnerable to changes in its domestic politics. (E.g. Israel, or Taiwan.)

It's difficult to build leverage in a country the size of an island—and once you're big enough to have any leverage, autarky becomes nearly impossible as you're always dependent on someone else for logistical reasons (food, fuel, etc.). This is essentially what the Second World War was fought about; autarky lost.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#28

Post by alentist » Thu, May 20, 2021, 5:59 PM UTC

varispeed wrote: post #23

______- wrote: post #8

I wish there was some sort of island or safe haven country setup by cryptographers so they could safely work on crypto without legal issues or crypto being seen as a munition and a threat to government. We could call it `01` and have it in a non fourteen-eyes jurisdiction preferably as an independent nation. We could export code containing cryptographic algorithms to countries that need it for privacy and safety reas…

In the UK if you won't give up your password (or essentially give means to decrypt data) when requested you can get 5 years for that. Encryption will not protect against the state in this case. Likely other countries will start to copy that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#29

Post by HeckFeck » Thu, May 20, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

Mindwipe wrote: post #13

The Bill is arguably the biggest threat to global online freedoms that exists. I'm surprised it has not been covered more here. It is amazingly badly written and will have huge negative consequences.

> Amazingly badly written

You know they want ambiguity. It means MPs can dismiss objectors as irrational slippery slope proponents. Then when it's appended to the statute books it only takes a few judgements to 'clarify' the law.

It's all downhill for freedom. The intention is clear. Voting is useless. The press have been silent to the point of compliance. It only takes a well placed messaging campaign and an unvigilant, ignorant public.

At least we still have beer to see us through the long haul. See you at the pub.

Re: How the UK's online safety bill threatens Matrix

#30

Post by world_peace42 » Thu, May 20, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

"when we force technology companies to make calls about what is right or wrong - or what is “likely to have adverse psychological or physical impacts” on children - we end up in a dangerous place of centralising and regulating relative morals"

I told myself to laugh when I read this line. As it stands now, a small group of Facebook and Google executives determine what peasants are allowed to think and see on a daily basis based on their "relative morals". Not that politicians are any better, but at least some people did vote for them, and that counts for something.

Let's be real here, anyone with time on their hands should click on foundation, and go check each of their grant histories. I am not even going to agree or disagree with the legislation, but I'm going to bet the money trail will explain this letter.