Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 320 posts

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#251

Post by frereubu »

creativenolo wrote: post #247
simonjgreen wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you read it regularly? It is centre aligned but as a reader, I wouldn’t say it was Conservative aligned. It certainly is a mile off its alignment with the “Tory press” that typically set the new agenda.

I'm a subscriber and I'd say it is small-c conservative (which I'm not really, I just appreciate that it's relatively open about its biases and enjoy the quality of writing), but it isn't aligned with the Conservative Party, which has become almost entirely unmoored from reality.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#252

Post by shawabawa3 »

p-e-w wrote: post #233
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…

You're making it sound as if the headline was poorly written, perhaps by accident or by a poor writer. I can assure you that isn't the case. Whoever wrote that headline is a copywriting genius. The headline conveys almost the exact opposite of what really happened, without being factually wrong. That doesn't happen by accident.

Does it?

For me the headline conveyed exactly what happened...

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#253

Post by globular-toast »

merpnderp wrote: post #34

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?

Because there's a bunch of incompetent people being paid to do bullshit jobs like coming up with this crap. It doesn't matter what it is, someone will make it their thing to make it happen because even having a negative impact is having an impact.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#254

Post by zo1 »

p-e-w wrote: post #233
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…

You're making it sound as if the headline was poorly written, perhaps by accident or by a poor writer. I can assure you that isn't the case. Whoever wrote that headline is a copywriting genius. The headline conveys almost the exact opposite of what really happened, without being factually wrong. That doesn't happen by accident.

Curious what you would say the opposite is?

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#255

Post by shawabawa3 »

jabradoodle wrote: post #250
j0ej0ej0e wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you misunderstood OP. Their point is the article headline sounds like democracy loosing out to evil big tech; they, like you, don't see it that way.

To anyone vaguely familiar with the story, or the UK government, the headline doesn't sound like that at all

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#256

Post by generationP »

ChrisKnott wrote: post #244
generationP wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has a recent history of sweeping child abuse under the rug when it involves minorities or famous personalities. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan... for two examples.

You've sleight-of-handed out "government" for "the UK" and linked two stories which don't really involve the UK government. Furthermore if you read your own links, you will see that the "recent history" of the Rotherham offending is that there is an enormous police investigation costing tens of millions of pounds and a large number of people have been convicted, and the "recent history" of the fallout from Jimmy Savi…

Local police is a part of the government as far as the laws in question are concerned; it's them who will be using or abusing the surveillance powers granted by the law. And the Rotherham scandal took two decades to be addressed, due not least to fierce political interference.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#257

Post by ftreader4350 »

frereubu wrote: post #251
creativenolo wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you read it regularly? It is centre aligned but as a reader, I wouldn’t say it was Conservative aligned. It certainly is a mile off its alignment with the “Tory press” that typically set the new agenda.

I'm a subscriber and I'd say it is small-c conservative (which I'm not really, I just appreciate that it's relatively open about its biases and enjoy the quality of writing), but it isn't aligned with the Conservative Party, which has become almost entirely unmoored from reality.

Usually I would tend to agree that the articles are well written and well researched, however after reading this steaming pile of surface level dross on a subject I have technical knowledge of, I might be less trusting of their editorial slant and quality of journalism in future.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#258

Post by midoridensha »

lapetitejort wrote: post #105
DubiousPusher wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be a fundamental human right to have and communicate secrets. That's the end of the story for me. There should be things the state simply cannot touch not just things which it should not touch.

Take a step back from communicating secrets. It should be a fundamental human right to perform math. That's what they're trying to ban. Some equations are apparently too powerful to be performed by lowly humans.

>It should be a fundamental human right to perform math.

Why?

What if society could be destroyed by performing math? Should it still be a fundamental right? What if the entire universe could be destroyed by doing math?

This reminds me of a couple episodes of The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits. In one ("Need to Know"), there's some secret; when person A tells person B the secret, person B goes insane (and then tries to tell others the secret). Should a verbally-communicated secret be illegal? In the other, a disgruntled college student figures out how to build a small fusion bomb, and uses it for terrorism and threatens to detonate much larger versions of the bomb. At the end, he's killed and takes his secret with him, but the implication is that the principles aren't really that difficult, and sooner or later some other angry person will figure out how to make such bombs and humanity will be doomed.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#259

Post by r_hoods_ghost »

staplers wrote: post #240
re-thc wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile the largest institutions and richest people are investing heavily due to its revolutionary nature. Is that why are they investing? Do investors care if it's revolutionary or that they just get high returns? E.g. a lot of "coins" have promised high returns that were obviously not sustainable.

Feel free to reply what makes bitcoin bad in a way any different from other high tech.

Not the patent but... incredibly environmentally destructive by design. Utterly privacy violating as you're publishing every transaction you make for the world to see on a public ledger so now your neighbour (and government) get to know about your badger fetish. Non reversible transactions are an invitation to fraud and theft and make routine errors like overpayments and payments to the wrong address potentially disastrous. Not to mention the "problems" it claims to fix like instant, fee free transactions and easy international transfers have been fixed for many years in countries with modern banking systems (i.e. not the USA) Etc. Etc. Etc.
Post reply on HN