271–280 of 320 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because "they" say it's bad, does not make it good Bitcoin is bad. Even a broken clock is right twice a day....
Feel free to reply what makes bitcoin bad in a way any different from other high tech.
Transaction costs are too high to be useful medium of exchange
The waste it generates, as its central operation to have artificial scarcity is definitely bad.
Bitcoin is very bad
All the govt said was "we'll only force scanning when it's "technically feasible" to do so" - i.e. when someone believes the CSAM scanning quality is high enough beyond some given threshold. It's still scanning though, and still fundamentally undermines encryption; it's just potentialy delaying the implementation a bit... having enabled it in law. The thing we should be fighting is enabling it in law.
Politico just published an article which nailed it: https://www.politico.eu/article/whatsapp-signal-meta-faceboo...
> "On Wednesday, Whittaker and other privacy campaigners falsely claimed that London was pulling back from its bid to access encrypted messages"
Likewise, the Government has spelt out very clearly that they consider absolutely nothing to have changed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66716502
dang: it's almost worth flagging this thread as being based on entirely incorrect data. For whatever reason, the desire to make progress on this issue means that folks have jumped the gun and are prematurely celebrating a win which is not a win, and thus undermining the whole campaign to protect encryption.
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.
I’d bet my life we start to see a massive influx of bad press aimed at messaging providers, focusing on how criminals are using their services, over the next few years. When the general sentiment of the average Dave is ‘encryption === bad’ this BS will rear its head again. Seems to have been the standard play for governments of this country for decades now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's either terrorism or child pornography. In my country (Romania) they use to call football hooligans whenever a protest is being made on a bigger scale just so they can put us all in the same boat and have an excuse to use armed forces and disperse everyone on the basis that the event was not peacefully done. Most of the people I talk to are brainwashed anyway and will happily accept it - just give it time. The di…
> "I have nothing to hide anyway". People who make that argument should be forced to have high def webcams installed in their bedrooms and bathrooms.
This article is completely wrong , and almost sabotages the fight against the UK Online Safety Bill, given it claims a victory that simply doesn't exist, and so lures everyone into a false sense of complacency. The UK govt must be ecstatic that they have changed nothing and yet the tech industry seems to believe that they've won something. All the govt said was "we'll only force scanning when it's "technically feasib…
As long as the messaging platforms don’t change their commitment then celebrating a small acknowledgement from the Government that the bill is basically unworkable is not a huge issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a federal contractor for NASA and let me tell you about government email: quota of 250MB of storage (2010-2012). I spent every morning moving emails with attachments to local folders on my Mac (which had no backups) to keep from going over quota. If I went on a 2 week vacation emails would start to bounce to me. After that fiasco I understood why Colin Powell told Hillary Clinton to just run her own email serve…
So what was keeping the President from just issuing an Executive Order increasing the email storage quota?
This article is completely wrong , and almost sabotages the fight against the UK Online Safety Bill, given it claims a victory that simply doesn't exist, and so lures everyone into a false sense of complacency. The UK govt must be ecstatic that they have changed nothing and yet the tech industry seems to believe that they've won something. All the govt said was "we'll only force scanning when it's "technically feasib…
The providers can refuse.
The UK can then demand that such apps are not available in the UK.
HOWEVER ... the providers can build WASM equivalents that run in the phones browser. These can be available elsewhere in the world, and there is no way to stop UK residents from installing them. If there is no other way to have end-to-end encrypted messaging, some provider WILL offer this ... and they'll make it pretty slick. You can try prosecute each user (not much chance of success).
Legislation that fights well implemented secrecy will always eventually loose, as the government becomes just one more hostile actor, which the tech is already set up to protect against.
If the government pushes too hard, all that happens is that encrypted messaging moves out of app stores into the open internet ... and then, not only can they not see the content, they can barely see who is using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This question is really too broad to answer. What sort of thing are you looking for? For a general overview of the whole system, this strategy is the best place to start. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Thanks. I guess I meant either new primary legislation that improves something tangible, but more importantly, provided more resource. As far as I can see, it's still funded from local authority budgets. I worked briefly in children's homes a long time ago. Kids were placed in assessment centers where they were supposed to be evaluated and sent on to an appropriate home. But there were no places for them, and they st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that if you hold a position in the government, all of your communication (including private email, chats, etc) should be subject to public scrutiny. A government official should be defined not as someone who is holding power, but as an elected representative of the people.
Did you even think out this train of thought? Does this cover medical communications, military secrets, private chat between family members, etc?
Of course not, I'm just a random person on the Internet ;)
The problem here is that a basic loophole is being abused to defeat the spirit of the law, thus making the operation of the government less transparent. The consequences should ramp up in proportion with the level of the abuse. You're using private WhatsApp to conduct state business? Your WhatsApp chat logs should be subject to FoI. If you want to keep family chat private, then move it to Telegram, and DON'T use Telegram to conduct state business, because otherwise your Telegram chat logs are next up to be scrutinized. I don't think the "spirit" of this idea is going too far?
> military secrets
There already are established procedures and laws for dealing with state secrets, including strategic information such as submarine designs, locations, nuke launch codes, etc. Whatever FoI/transparency laws are in place, they need to respect the need for protecting state secrets - that should be pretty obvious.