Who persuades politicians it’s a good idea for the security services to be able to scan all their messages? I am absolutely certain that the politicians have absolutely no clue what they’re being asked to implement.
Oh, politicians' messages won't be scanned. They'll make sure of that. Only the peons will have their messages scanned. The French law that makes it legal for the government to hack your phone has a bunch of exceptions so it's not legal for the government to hack important people's phones.
Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
321–330 of 409 posts
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wore a "this t-shirt is a munition" tee back in the day. With a quarter century of hindsight, I think encryption as a privacy tool may not have been a solution, but a sedative that prevented the smartest people from seeing how bad things really were and applying their courage to those problems.
Somewhat relevant xkcd. https://xkcd.com/504/
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#323Governments 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…
> I assume the UK had some equivalent to the 90s crypto wars in the US where attempts to weaken and backdoor crypto by legal means were pretty decisively defeated. I'm thinking of the fact that GCHQ invented RSA in 1973, four years before Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir and Leonard Adleman publicly described the same system, and only got around to declassifying this in 1997.
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes, they do. Encryption is a real issue for the mandate of a government, and also a real solution for other parts of the mandate of a government. It's not like we (as the broad community) are engaging with empathy. Even if there is maybe no great solution to the whole dilemma, it would help the entire thing, if we stopped camping on one side so entirely.
Empathy is for persons, not for legal entities.
Anyway is a "person" not also a legal entity in some way?
In short, I understand what you are saying but I don't think it is precise enough.
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#325Her 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…
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea of pervasive spying has been around forever. The want, and why. Apple mainstreamed, normalized the discourse, and demoed the concept of pre-scanning in the face of E2E. Apple provided the answer for the how.
Apple didn’t mainstream anything, indeed they withdrew the plan after the discourse was overwhelmingly opposed to the idea.
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#327I fail to understand what the uk is trying to achieve with its current ubiquitous surveillance. Crime in london is rampant, theft is nearly decriminalised in some areas, and now they want to monitor what people do on the internet? Other than docile tax payers what other potential goal is there? Services are steadily degrading, cost of living is out of control, quality of life dropping. Do they just want obedience, an…
Brexit means that doing business with the UK is suddenly much more complex and expensive. Mandatory backdoors would break many products, and then products which rely on those products. The UK has 67 million people, or just under 1% of the world.
What's cheaper:
- Compliance (especially with unethical laws like this one); or
- Dumping 1% of your customers?
The flip side is that if I'm opening up a branch somewhere, will I do it somewhere where:
- A bunch of my tools don't work, and I need to jump through a whole bunch of hoops? or
- Just over the canal in France, across the Pacific in the US, or better yet, a little further over in some place like Czechia?
As with many isolationist regimes, England is also among the most despised countries in the world. Ever seen the Clockwork Orange? England has done some nasty shit to a lot of people around the world. It has no shortage of enemies, but it seems to be isolating itself from its former friends....
I'm waiting to see how this whole thing plays out, but I'm not bullish on the UK. If things go the way I think, I'd feel bad for Scotland. They'll have zero percent of the fault, and fully share in the consequences.
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would we have done differently? All this stuff is really convenient. Would we have really said “no” to turn-by-turn navigation? Avoided online purchases? Used cash for most of our transactions? Printed things out so we don’t use the internet while outside?
I think the problem is a pretty old one: you can't use technology to solve social problems. Encryption as a tool is great for some particular kinds of privacy, but using encryption to "fix" privacy was misguided from the start. Privacy is a policy problem; we need laws on the books that prevent both governments and companies from collecting and using data about us. Rules like the US Constitution's 4th amendment, and…
Nothing is meaningful without the physical and social power to enforce it. When you have that then even the absurd becomes reality and common sense.
Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#329Re: Signal president says company will not comply with U.K. ‘mass surveillance’ law
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never claimed nor implied that their lives are meaningless (point where). On the contrary, because everyone's life is meaningful and important, they shouldn't have to slave away or do scutwork just to survive. This is what I am advocating for. I want people to live, to be free, to enjoy the same things I am. This is literally the opposite of paternalistic. I am also not a tankie if that's what you concluded fr…
> 99.99% of us exist to feed the capitalists I'm honestly curious why you wrote this and if you can explain what it means, because to me it means 'people who labor for others are wasting their lives as slaves and we need to remedy this'. What have I misread?
Our utility and thus QoL is measured in how the surrounding system values us. In a capitalist society that is visible through our salaries and our income as provided by other parties. In a marxist-leninist-like society, your value depends on your connections and how much you get done for the rest of the ruling party.
Thus, because we need to survive, we are forced into working for the system in any of the different ways it materializes.
When we are no longer useful to the system as productive members, we are forced into becoming useful for it.
Rooflessness is very much a solvable problem, but the roofless' purpose within the system to exist as examples for avoidance. "Stay in life or you will end up like them". "Be productive", "work hard in this rat race", "keep grinding", or you will end up like them.
When we are old and no longer productive, we are sent to hospice care, which costs a lot of money, it involves very expensive healthcare, and thus any money we have accumulated go to our care and back to the system, recycled to be used by consumers, and recycled all over again. Our kin and their love for us gets exploited, we become money sinks.
What for? We spend 40 years working to do what, live hopefully 20 years later, old frail and weak? To become a money pit? So that our loved ones and their love for us gets exploited?
---
I am laboring for others, but that doesn't mean I see myself as a slave. I am very lucky. I get paid a relatively excellent salary, and I get to work a nice and interesting job that satisfies my curiosity.
But very few people are as lucky as I am. Most people are not living and thriving, they are surviving, and I don't want that.
It's not the fact that they labor, it's the fact that they need to do that in the first place.