UK drops 'spy clause' for scanning encrypted messages, admits not 'feasible'

Post by yencabulator » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

miohtama wrote: post #56

bananapub wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not very secret. a bunch of western governments want to be able to spy on the comms of their citizens and lazy terrorists/pedophiles/whatever with poor opsec. basically everyone including normies moving to well-encrypted chat systems makes this very hard (requires court-ordering/NSL/coercing software companies to 0wn their own customers), so instead they want to standardise making it easy for governments. the UK…

Casual spying on citizens is new to Western governments (unless you count East Germany as Western). However in some countries your phone must have mandatory government spyware on your mobile phone and PC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dam_Youth_Escort

Post by troupo » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #67

bananapub wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they are trying to get the law passed they did pass the law through the lower house. the upper house can demand amendments and stall things a bit, but it can also just be completely ignored given enough time. > despite the obvious objection that message filtering is impossible it's not impossible, it's just a horrificly bad idea, and why would being impossible affect if it gets passed or not? > by saying "we know it…

I'm slowly becoming of the opinion that legislators should be punished for creating laws that are nakedly illegal (against the constitution/human rights that have been agreed upon). I don't know what can of worms it would open, but it's getting tiring when politicians just ignore the public and push forward with laws that then spend 5 years in court battles to eventually be struck down. But for those 5 years their bu…

Post by Canada » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

bananapub wrote: post #133

Canada wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She said further work to develop the technology was needed, but added that government-funded research had shown it was possible. Wow, she just lies so easily.

what's the lie? deploying this mass surveillance system is definitely possible.

Post by pydry » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 5:33 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #49

bananapub wrote: post #17

The reporting on this is horrific, including by the businesses involved. Absolutely nothing legally was changed. The government put out a press release saying some worthless crap, that's the entire thing that happened. edit: sorry, not a press release, sent a minion to read out a non-binding statement, who then confirmed the the law was not actually changed at all: https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-minister-says-…

No human being whatsoever should be surprised when Reuters offers better reporting than The Register.

Post by eesmith » Thu, Sep 07, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #119

eesmith wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that veers too close to the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's like saying that in a {a benevolent dictatorship, real communism, true anarchy} the citizens will not fear the government.

That a goal . Equating it to a logical fallacy is meaningless noise. (Personally, I'm not sure how much it's an actionable or desirable goal. But it's a goal.)