Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law • Hacker News Board

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#91

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:03 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #26

semiquaver wrote: post #4

Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…

> but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced When the government creates a law within recorded history — something like a wiretapping law — then the spirit of the law is well-known at time of creation. Usually, that "spirit" is that it's created to explicitly grant a capability to the government to do a thing for the benefit of the public u…

[deleted]

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#92

Post by hammock » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #71

23B1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the Federalist Papers are some of the most important documents when understanding the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights – and simultaneously the least read! I'm not saying that case law isn't also an important aspect of the 'law' and that the constitution shouldn't be amended – I'm not really a hardcore 'originalist' – I just mean that any time a SCOTUS ruling comes out, it's clear that in the…

There seems to be a function missing from government. All governments, AFAICT. Legislators change the law (including, rarely, the constitution) — effectively by applying a hierarchy of "countermanding orders" — to suit the changing interests of the public. Courts interpret the law, but only downstream of legislation. The executive can make regulation and executive orders, but only in agreement with the law. But at th…

That’s what Constitutional amendments are for, and it’s happened 27 times in the history of the US, most recently in 1992.

The corporate media doesn’t typically like to talk about that process since it is a threat to the entrenched powers that be.

The ombudsman of the American people is their state legislatures.

We have sovereign states in the US. Let’s not add any more power to the federal apparatus to solve a perceived problem with itself

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#93

Post by Eisenstein » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:07 PM UTC

DaSHacka wrote: post #77

AmericanChopper wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All governments will trend towards tyranny if left unsupervised. Imo western democracies have been entirely subverted by an imaginary left/right conflict, where you end up with exactly the same thing no matter who you elect. The voting population is so completely engrossed with their contempt for either the detestable “left wing” tyrants, or the detestable “right wing” tyrants that they can’t see the side they end up…

Its really quite surprising just how many American issues come down to this. Much of the identity-politics driven discussion of late can really just be boiled down to liberal vs conservative / right vs left.

I have noticed that people who are steadfast in positions and don't listen to reason and subscribe to 'identity' politics on both the left and right differ mainly in where they were raised and by who raised them. The Berkeley folk who mandate it illegal to burn wood in your own fireplace have more in common with people who think trans people should be forced to live as the gender defined at birth than they do with people who think we should listen to each other reasonably and have empathy.

The problem is that when one set of people get weaponized by folks who are legitimately nefarious and or criminally stupid and mentally ill, there is not no moral stance which is effectively 'I don't like some people on one side so I will let the demonstrably dangerous people take the power and do what they want'.

Do you have a solution to this? Because otherwise giving 'both sides are just as bad' speech is borderline negligent.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#94

Post by Barrin92 » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:08 PM UTC

semiquaver wrote: post #4

Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…

>It also seems like there’s a tendency to relitigate battles that are lost. I assume the UK had some equivalent to the 90s crypto wars

They didn't, and for what it's worth public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of the law. I think anyone discussing a British law ought to keep that in mind (https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/68pn2b6b57/NSPCC_OnlineSafetyBil...). Even on the most contentious parts of the bill:

Do you believe it should or should not become a legal requirement for the following to scan messages and posts on their platforms for child sexual abuse?

[Private messaging services]

This should be a legal requirement -> 60; This should not be a legal requirement -> 21; Don’t know -> 18

[Social media sites]

This should be a legal requirement -> 79; This should not be a legal requirement -> 10; Don’t know -> 10

Likewise on E2EE over 70% of respondents agree that ability to access them is warranted. So the framing in the discussion as if this is solely the British government against technologists is completely off, it's also taking a position against the British public.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#95

Post by kortilla » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:10 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #26

semiquaver wrote: post #4

Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…

> but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced When the government creates a law within recorded history — something like a wiretapping law — then the spirit of the law is well-known at time of creation. Usually, that "spirit" is that it's created to explicitly grant a capability to the government to do a thing for the benefit of the public u…

The wiretapping law did not have the intent of eavesdropping on arbitrary conversations (it is orthogonal to bugging peoples homes). It also did not allow mail to be opened.

The “spirit of the law” argument is bullshit here in tenuously trying to expand wiretapping to decrypting text.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#96

Post by hammock » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:10 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #26

semiquaver wrote: post #4

Governments seem to want to have it both ways. As new technologies are introduced they assume that capabilities and practices available to analogous predecessors must remain available to them (e.g. wire-tapping phones => undermining cryptography) but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced (anonymous cash transactions => ???) It also seems l…

> but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced When the government creates a law within recorded history — something like a wiretapping law — then the spirit of the law is well-known at time of creation. Usually, that "spirit" is that it's created to explicitly grant a capability to the government to do a thing for the benefit of the public u…

> The people who invented "using gold coins as a common exchange for barter" weren't thinking about anonymity

What makes you say that anonymity wasn’t a concern? I have a hard time believing that claim without any substantiation.

Anonymity in market participation and transactions has been an important consideration for millennia. Anyone who has watched Jasmine put on peasant clothes and visit the market in Disney’s Aladdin can understand that

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#97

Post by verisimi » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #71

23B1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the Federalist Papers are some of the most important documents when understanding the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights – and simultaneously the least read! I'm not saying that case law isn't also an important aspect of the 'law' and that the constitution shouldn't be amended – I'm not really a hardcore 'originalist' – I just mean that any time a SCOTUS ruling comes out, it's clear that in the…

There seems to be a function missing from government. All governments, AFAICT. Legislators change the law (including, rarely, the constitution) — effectively by applying a hierarchy of "countermanding orders" — to suit the changing interests of the public. Courts interpret the law, but only downstream of legislation. The executive can make regulation and executive orders, but only in agreement with the law. But at th…

What fantasy are you living in?

Have you seen the formation of any countries? Even one?

Have you ever seen representative anarchy? Please tell me where - I'll be there like a shot!

> embedded journalism to figure out what issues "the people" are beginning to care about

Afaik, journalists are there to tell the people what to think - what do you think propaganda is? Do you think that propaganda is something the Russians do, but your country doesn't?!?

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#98

Post by mcpackieh » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

ahzhou wrote: post #82

motohagiography wrote: post #7

Her television interview with the former(?) minister responsible for this abomination of a law was urgent and necessary. These legislators know what they are doing, and that it is unethical. Let Signal leave the UK market. If the people want freedom, let them take it themselves. Perhaps before this generation of young men are rounded up for another one of history's meat grinders in Ukraine, as a means to further redu…

Your insinuation that the UK will implement a Ukraine war draft in order to advance a totalitarian agenda is weird, unnecessarily conspiratorial, and dilutes your point. I encourage you to make one point and to make it well.

As long as conscription laws remain on the books, it should never be taboo to worry about those laws being put into practice.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#99

Post by avianlyric » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #96

derefr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they don’t feel the same way about public benefits or rights associated with other technology that is being replaced When the government creates a law within recorded history — something like a wiretapping law — then the spirit of the law is well-known at time of creation. Usually, that "spirit" is that it's created to explicitly grant a capability to the government to do a thing for the benefit of the public u…

> The people who invented "using gold coins as a common exchange for barter" weren't thinking about anonymity What makes you say that anonymity wasn’t a concern? I have a hard time believing that claim without any substantiation. Anonymity in market participation and transactions has been an important consideration for millennia. Anyone who has watched Jasmine put on peasant clothes and visit the market in Disney’s A…

> What makes you say that anonymity wasn’t a concern? I have a hard time believing that claim without any substantiation.

Because the inverse claim, “people using gold coins thousands of years ago for common exchange were worried about the anonymity of their transactions”, is absurd.

It’s not like the alternative to gold coins two millennia ago was a traceable currency, the technology for tracking a large population literally didn’t exist, and wouldn’t exist for almost two thousand years. People relying on gold coins couldn’t possibly conceive of a world where people’s every transaction could be reliably tracked.

Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law

#100

Post by borski » Sat, Jul 15, 2023, 6:14 PM UTC

CaptainMarvel wrote: post #79

mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>being ruled by a family Nice hyperbole. Western monarchs have no real political power. They're just figureheads whose wealth is continually financed by the state. Which is stupid, but they're not rulers of anything other than their own lavish properties.

Utter rubbish. Prime ministers have long held weekly audiences with the monarch. The monarch has the right to review legislation before it is put to parliament. That mechanism has been used to change laws - in your lifetime, on this side of the century. These are just three examples from the top of my head.

> That mechanism has been used to change laws - in your lifetime, on this side of the century.

I have no bone to pick, not knowing anything about the royal family, but do you have any examples of this happening?