UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

Post by staplers » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 6:33 AM UTC

andybak wrote: post #230

staplers wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is an example of this already played out. News cycle perpetuates bitcoin == bad so everyone you know just repeats "scam" and points to criminals. Meanwhile the largest institutions and richest people are investing heavily due to its revolutionary nature. Just look at all the ETFs coming out (Blackrock, Fidelity, etc). Once they are fully setup you'll see the news cycle change sentiment. Rinse, repeat, with an…

Nice try.

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 6:36 AM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #222

ajb wrote: post #5

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.

Setting my personal opinion on this law proposal aside, I think that the UK legislation lost its teeth with Brexit. It's just loud barking for the sole purpose of getting CEOs on the table. Imagine their influence if they would have stayed in the EU, and if France would have joined them (which they usually do when it comes to more governmental oversight of the executive branches of the government). What scares me a l…

Post by jackjeff » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 6:38 AM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #47

halJordan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that was my reading as well. The legislation isn't being changed. The statement even says "We know you can develop [the methods to access], and we still have the authority to order it." The only relevant part of from op is the govt acknowledging that 2+2 = 4. But it fails to acknowledge that if they want to get 5, they can still order the equation to be 3+2.

Through most of history government always has the power, but the question is whether it has the legitimacy. In this case it has the legitimacy, but lacks the power. This is an unusual turn. We need online safety for kids. The aims of this bill should obtain widespread support from everyone. But instead of carefully researching and implementing difficult ideas, framing it properly and obtaining permission from the peo…

Post by creativenolo » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 6:41 AM UTC

simonjgreen wrote: post #231

tremorscript wrote: post #215

I don't really like the headline, it makes it sound negative. Big Tech tends to have negative connotations, nowadays. So, here the FT is trying to say that a democratically elected government is living in fear of private firms. While it may be true that our government are now living in fear of not just Big Tech but all types of Big whatever, the fight was way beyond just big tech. Sure Big Tech helped but it still is…

FT is a conservative-centre aligned news outlet, so stands to reason they'd favour their preferred party

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 6:57 AM UTC

j0ej0ej0e wrote: post #234

tremorscript wrote: post #215

I don't really like the headline, it makes it sound negative. Big Tech tends to have negative connotations, nowadays. So, here the FT is trying to say that a democratically elected government is living in fear of private firms. While it may be true that our government are now living in fear of not just Big Tech but all types of Big whatever, the fight was way beyond just big tech. Sure Big Tech helped but it still is…

lol the uk gov has more negative connotations than bigtech. Also not quite democratic when the uk electorate last voted for a gov in 2019 but we have had 3 prime ministers since all with vastly different strategies, where the last 2 were chosen by anyone who wants to pay for a membership to the tory party, including fake identities made by journalists who registered from france. If you had some context, bigtech are a…