71–80 of 205 posts
Translation: can u give us a backdoor in Signal, plz? for the kidz, promiss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make no mistake: the Online Safety Bill has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children. End-to-end encryption is the first line of defence against government approved mass surveillance. If it falls, the rest will follow. It will only be a short period until the operation is expanded under the guise of additional "protections" against the citizens.
[flagged]
Only when there's enough brain drain might they backtrack but politically we have a party in power that is susceptible to infighting and not at all focussed on actually serving its citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make no mistake: the Online Safety Bill has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children. End-to-end encryption is the first line of defence against government approved mass surveillance. If it falls, the rest will follow. It will only be a short period until the operation is expanded under the guise of additional "protections" against the citizens.
The "children" excuse + most of the population saying "I don't need privacy, I have nothing to hide" is a double whammy against any form of encryption and it's just a matter of time before our Internet privacy rights are completely stripped away. A huge educational campaign is necessary to convince people and the average politician that being pro-encryption doesn't mean being criminals or pedophiles. So it's a lost b…
The entire rhetorical position is difficult. One of the (somewhat implicit) rules of public discourse seems to be "assume good faith". To make the argument that people should have freedom from government requires an acknowledgement that government officials regularly do more harm than good. It is insanely challenging to carry that position in a debate. Keep your eye out for the handful of people who manage to do it without being tarred as crazy. That rhetorical imbalance makes it safe and straightforward for power politicians and police to argue that they should get to read everyone's emails.
It is tricky to understand why centralised power is a terrible thing that will lead to corruption and injustice. Implementing a system that tolerates privacy requires the bureaucracy to not grasp power. We've always been lucky in a sense that a critical mass of people learned they need to fight to protect freedom as an ideal, even if they can't exactly explain why or if the details seem to lead to bad outcomes (see also "fight for your right to say it"). It may be the only defence against a Stalinist- or Maoist-style collapse.
> The government said its proposal was not "a ban on end-to-end encryption". > Critics say companies could be required by Ofcom to scan messages on encrypted apps for child sexual abuse material or terrorism content under the new law. So, what's going on here? Is it going to be E2EE between user and user and then also a copy E2EE between user and the government? What a time to be alive. Or is the law going to require…
> The government, and prominent child protection charities have long argued that encryption hinders efforts to combat online child abuse - which they say is a growing problem. So take using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What they should be doing, is rather then increase the risk of for the majority who use encryption for valid reasons (privacy, not nefarious), is invest in services to allow individuals to gain help,…
Make no mistake: the Online Safety Bill has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children. End-to-end encryption is the first line of defence against government approved mass surveillance. If it falls, the rest will follow. It will only be a short period until the operation is expanded under the guise of additional "protections" against the citizens.
I wish people would acknowledge both sides of the coin instead of simply pretending the other side doesn't exist.
Yes society uses surveillance to identify and prosecute criminals (of various ilks, including those who abuse children). If you render that surveillance impossible by construction then people who might previously have been caught will not be.
Instead you pretend that the only goal here is am authoritarian state straight from 1984.
The risk of the second is one reason not to do it. IMO it's easier to think what happens when you make it easier for people to be blackmailed, manipulated, impersonated, defrauded. But again, that's just an opinion.
> The government said its proposal was not "a ban on end-to-end encryption". > Critics say companies could be required by Ofcom to scan messages on encrypted apps for child sexual abuse material or terrorism content under the new law. So, what's going on here? Is it going to be E2EE between user and user and then also a copy E2EE between user and the government? What a time to be alive. Or is the law going to require…
I will say it again, something has got to give. You can't have humane treatment of child rapists and fear government overreach. It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access. It is possible to also design public auditing of such systems so that a warrant or lawful order being used to intercept communications can be logged and audited by the public. Warrants are not forever secre…
By this argument, one would believe that it is imperative for communications networks to assist Nazi Germany in the location and rounding up of undesired people as a part of Gleichschaltung, and that to not do this is to cede power to pedophiles.
> The government, and prominent child protection charities have long argued that encryption hinders efforts to combat online child abuse - which they say is a growing problem. So take using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What they should be doing, is rather then increase the risk of for the majority who use encryption for valid reasons (privacy, not nefarious), is invest in services to allow individuals to gain help,…
It's less of a sledgehammer and more of a ballistic missile. With nuclear payload.