> the tech regulator would only require companies to scan their networks when a technology is developed that is capable of doing so.
IOW, as soon as backdoors are implemented. And we only have to lose this battle once.
UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
61–70 of 320 posts
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#62The whole UK government is run via WhatsApp. The threat to withdraw service should have concentrated minds.
This isn't true, is it? If so that's slightly terrifying.
The political communications are done with WhatsApp. This is illegal of course.
There has been no discussion of the obvious national security risk.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/22/uk-ministers-acc...
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not technically feasible is akin to abandonment in government circles. To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access. Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead.
> To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access. > Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead. Except it's not. There exist such cryptographic trapdoor constructions that are perfectly secure, if the government backdoor key i…
Ye I find it somewhat amusing that sharing a private key with the government is technically impossible. I guess you could be philosophical about whether it is private though, in that case.
Anyway, I am gladly surprised they seem to back off.
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#64The whole UK government is run via WhatsApp. The threat to withdraw service should have concentrated minds.
This isn't true, is it? If so that's slightly terrifying.
It's not completely untrue, there was a whole hoo-hah over getting Boris Johnsons WhatsApp messages. They use it to get around the requirement that official communications be logged and available for later scrutiny, much like a bank has to retain communications in case of an audit.
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The podcast makes a unsubstantiated and unexamined assumption: kids > must be online. You haven't listened to a single word of it have you? https://soundcloud.com/chrismorrisbits/peter-ohanraha-hanrah... It says precisely the opposite.
The podcast starts with a kid interviewing parents who unanimously support the bill, calling it brilliant. If the podcast wants to say the thing, they should say the thing rather than its opposite.
I'm sorry you felt tricked by that dramatic device.
Perhaps listen to end of the podcast to get closure.
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#66The whole UK government is run via WhatsApp. The threat to withdraw service should have concentrated minds.
This isn't true, is it? If so that's slightly terrifying.
The rules don't apply to them.
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not technically feasible is akin to abandonment in government circles. To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access. Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead.
> To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access. > Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead. Except it's not. There exist such cryptographic trapdoor constructions that are perfectly secure, if the government backdoor key i…
well, by definition if the key is to be used, and to be used more than once, it cannot be kept safe. The key has to go through multiple hands on its way from the senior government official responsible for its safekeeping to the peon assigned to unlock a specific phone at a specific point in time. It could be copied at any one of those points. No amount of technology or cryptography can solve the master key problem. The social problem is the technical problem, they aren't distinct.
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#68Their purposes have been served. Values have been signalled. Implementation was never going to be possible, which made it all the better a choice, as it means you don't have to actually do anything except blame tech companies when it doesn't happen. Job done.
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already have a remit to embrace online safety on my own terms - I can install a local filtering system if I choose to.
Of curse, but it's not terribly easy for the average person to put sophisticated filters into multiple content pipelines on every child's device (imagine having 4 or 5 kids of different ages and needs). So a solution I think we brainstormed on the show was mandating open interoperable APIs that allow easy insertion of (presumably commercial or open source) plugins into the system, within the user's end-to-end digital…
> on every child's device
Devices only in public areas in the house. Dumbphones for emergencies.
Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging
#70So it seems from the news that it was industry that forced this, but do we know how effective our campaigning and emails to MPs were? Or just some un-noteworthy political cog wheel action? How could we find out? Do the reasons get leaked unofficially usually?
> do we know how effective our campaigning and emails to MPs were?
Campaigning to your MP is and always has been a waste of time.
In addition, the "safer" their seat, the more of a waste of space the MP is because they know their constituents would vote for a pig if the right coloured rosette pinned to it.
Most of the time they don't bother replying, and then if they do reply, you get a two-page party political broadcast, followed by a generic paragraph about "how they understand your concern blah blah blah" but never addressing the point at hand.