121–130 of 320 posts
You see this time and time again, some initiative to "just introduce some backdoors, what could go wrong", and then it takes some time for people who understand what it actually means to convince them that it is in fact a really bad idea and it would be a giant disaster.
Unfortunately I suspect they will just keep trying it out over and over until the public gets too exhausted to rally against it anymore.
The real question is why did they want this? Is the UK suffering some giant crime wave or are the powers that be just really intent on making sure people are using Bad Think in their private chats?
“Eco terrorism” is on the rise. As we progress with climate change and climate disaster, it’s clear that eco terrorism is going to be increasing. This has been especially highlighted in UK. I put it in quotes because honestly it’s just fighting for survival at this point, but the ones in charge have decided to add the word terror to make it scarier.
Personally, I don't think this is a particularly legitimate concern (and by extension, not one which I would assume the government has), since the whole point of revolutions is that they don't need to be planned; they are a groundswell of popular opinion turned violent. Even if encrypted group chats were necessary for ecological campaigning groups, I don't believe they are popular enough among the British public or violent enough to make even a minor dent in the Britain establishment.
I wonder where does this end? I do feel like nearly once a year some country in western world tries to ban encryption. Can we just make it a right to encrypt communications and be done with this endless debate?
let's let the UK do it they've become the biggest laughing stock in multiple other avenues anyways, you need an example for people to learn from one look at san fransisco and people start funding their police departments again
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe don't over-rate the influence of the industry. The Conservative party's own members tore it to shreds. From: https://cybershow.uk/media/episodes/OSB1_r2_2023-08-27.mp3 * "The source of the bill itself, the UK Conservative Party, has a significant number of its own critics calling it "fundamentally misdesigned" David Davis said its well-intentioned attempts may constitute "the biggest accidental curtailment of f…
David Davis is somewhat unusual - he actually resigned as MP to protest against an erosion of civil liberties (and stood on a civil liberty platform) Westminster will be a worse place when he goes, which I assume will be in next year’s election.
The real question is why did they want this? Is the UK suffering some giant crime wave or are the powers that be just really intent on making sure people are using Bad Think in their private chats?
“Eco terrorism” is on the rise. As we progress with climate change and climate disaster, it’s clear that eco terrorism is going to be increasing. This has been especially highlighted in UK. I put it in quotes because honestly it’s just fighting for survival at this point, but the ones in charge have decided to add the word terror to make it scarier.
So they idiotically put into the law something like "wait for technology to be developed to allow snooping without compromising security"? Such lawmakers shouldn't allowed anywhere near making laws.
So 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?
It’s not science or logic that convinced the UK government, one of the most determined enemies of the Internet. It’s that Meta showed it will follow up on threats when it removed all links to news sites in Canada. UK politicians love WhatsApp’s end to end encryption as it allows them to evade public records laws (as well as snooping by UK spooks who have not hesitated to wiretap British Prime Ministers like Harold Wi…
It's a little unclear, but my reading of this is that the power to do it will still be in the law, requiring at most secondary legislation to put into effect (perhaps not even that) if they think they ever have enough leverage over messaging providers, or are willing to spend the political capital. Not a great place to be in really, but better than it actually being deployed.