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

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

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 160 posts

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

#141

Post by vdqtp3 »

dghf wrote: post #98
Aerroon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no such thing as an illegal Act of Parliament in the UK. Parliament has unfettered power to pass whatever laws it sees fit, regardless of existing laws, treaties, or whatever. (At least, that's the standard interpretation, though some authorities have suggested it's not quite as simple as that: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t... for details.)

To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action?

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

#142

Post by mcpackieh »

robertlagrant wrote: post #81
mcpackieh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the Stasi were breaking into people's homes and stealing their underwear to store in archives of scent jars for their dogs, but as extreme as that is I don't think that and their other tactics gave them anything close to the surveillance capabilities modern governments now have thanks to everybody carrying a smartphone 24/7.

Well, sometimes they'd have someone crouched in the room next door listening and looking. That seems fairly invasive even by today's standards.

Yes, the things the Stasi did were insanely paranoid. But I think they still got less "bang for their buck" than modern western democracies. The latter have a far more complete map of who associates with who, logs of where people have been even months before they become subjects of interest, etc.

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

#143

Post by marcosdumay »

eesmith wrote: post #140
marcosdumay wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Hence "I think that's more an optimistic interpretation of democracy." I don't think it's a goal of democracy, and I highlighted what I think are flaws with thinking of it that way. In your ideal democracy should non-citizens fear the government? Are children full citizens and, if not, should they fear the government too? It's also a goal of communism and of anarchy, yes?

Yes, it's a goal of (Marxist) communism, and (AFAIK) the one largest goal of anarchy.

You can criticize it as a goal as much as you want. There's plenty of things to disagree in it. But you just can't go and state it's a no true Scotchman, that is meaningless nonsense.

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

#144

Post by bee_rider »

_puk wrote: post #96
Aerroon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In a country that doesn't have a written constitution [0] (per se), and is continually trying to renege on what human rights have been agreed [1], what would there be to punish against? 0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...

That’s a dumb way to run things, though. Lawmakers should be punished according to the most expansive definition of human rights that is plausible under the system. If the sort of constitutional/basic laws are ill defined and constantly changing, that’s problem #1 and they should be heavily incentivized to fix it.

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

#145

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bananapub wrote: post #99
_puk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a country that doesn't have a written constitution [0] (per se), and is continually trying to renege on what human rights have been agreed [1], what would there be to punish against? 0: https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-co... 1: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/05/tory-mps-to...

exactly, there's a lot of very weird "Everywhere Is Like The US, Presumably" commenting in this thread

Presumably the proposal is for the UK and such places to adopt a written constitution guaranteeing certain rights to the population, and then punish government officials for violating it.

The most effective version is probably not the ability to sue for damages, but rather that if the highest court rules a law unconstitutional, anyone who voted in favor of it is ineligible to run for reelection. This would both get the perpetrators out of office and make them much more cautious about violating the rights of the population.

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

#146

Post by bee_rider »

pipo234 wrote: post #112
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bigger picture of why UK is hell bent on surveilling their citizens, communities is that the number one problem is that governments are losing control over society. I suspect theres a bunch of things going on. They've come down so hard on recent protest movements like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, etc because as you say they feel like they've lost authority and they want it back. National-scale surveillance…

> Can't build stable societies on fear. Yes, you're right. I meant to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” And indeed democracy isn't liberty, it's just the least bad attempt to achieve a bunch of laudable goals.

Ideally “the government” wouldn’t fear the people any more than, say, my computer fears me. It is a tool. It exists to implement my will.

Fear derives from things like our sense of self-preservation, and other concerns that our goals might not be achieved. Since the government ideally has no goal but to serve the people, it should have no fear (perhaps other than the fear of failure).

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

#147

Post by eesmith »

marcosdumay wrote: post #143
eesmith wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence "I think that's more an optimistic interpretation of democracy." I don't think it's a goal of democracy, and I highlighted what I think are flaws with thinking of it that way. In your ideal democracy should non-citizens fear the government? Are children full citizens and, if not, should they fear the government too? It's also a goal of communism and of anarchy, yes?

Yes, it's a goal of (Marxist) communism, and (AFAIK) the one largest goal of anarchy. You can criticize it as a goal as much as you want. There's plenty of things to disagree in it. But you just can't go and state it's a no true Scotchman, that is meaningless nonsense.

Are there democracies now? Yes.

Do they have the goal you describe? No.

Will they ever? Very unlikely, for reasons I listed.

Does that make them democracies? If you say they are not democracies then I'm calling No True Scotsman.

We have 2000 years of history where the most vocal proponents of democracy deliberately restricted full citizenship from all its population.

It's therefore hard for me to think your goal is a core part of democracy.

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

#148

Post by bunabhucan »

pydry wrote: post #138
justin66 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What is wrong with it? The article actually states everything the OP did here. I'm not sure what is missed. From what Ive heard on the grapevine PR flacks hate the Register. That kind of says it all. They dont just republish press releases like Reuters or write neoliberal op eds like the Economist.

>Britain should scrap its Online Safety Bill

>It is both illiberal and impractical

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/05/26/britain-should-...

Also:

>Britain’s parallel legislative effort is shaping up to be more far-reaching. The Online Safety Bill was conceived in 2019 after the suicide of a 14-year-old who had binged on algorithmically recommended depressive material. Four prime ministers later, the text of the bill has almost doubled in length. An American tech firm dubs it “one of the most complex bills we face anywhere in the world”.

>It goes further than the EU in its loosely worded requirement for platforms to proactively screen material. The larger social networks already check videos for matches with known child-abuse content. But subtler crimes, such as incitement to violence, are harder to detect automatically. The scale of some platforms—YouTube uploads 500 hours of video per minute—means that a strict requirement to pre-screen content could throttle the amount of new material uploaded.

From a larger article looking at US/UK/EU legislation and politics on the issue:

https://www.economist.com/international/2023/05/29/the-speec...

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

#149

Post by polymatter »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #141
dghf wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as an illegal Act of Parliament in the UK. Parliament has unfettered power to pass whatever laws it sees fit, regardless of existing laws, treaties, or whatever. (At least, that's the standard interpretation, though some authorities have suggested it's not quite as simple as that: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t... for details.)

To take this to an extreme, are you saying that under UK law, it would be legal for Parliament to legalize slavery or permit other activities that would unconscionable and illegal without such action?

Yes to my understanding. Parliament makes the laws. No court can override Parliament. No existing law binds Parliament. The only thing stopping this is how incredibly embarrassing it would be and individual MPs might lose their next election.

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/parliame...

Post reply on HN