I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.
[dead]
Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
31–40 of 299 posts
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#32I think there is a point to this. I’m not saying I’m a fan. But the reality is that it is too simple to communicate secretly, and the government has an interest in protecting its citizens. This is true in many aspects. (Health, technology, electronics, traffic) Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where…
the problem with current government protecting its citizens by collecting their private communications is the next government having access to this sensitive data.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#33Developers of apps that use end-to-end encryption to protect private communications could be considered hostile actors in the UK. <-- HTTPS does this. What about secure sites like baking sites that encrypt end-to-end? Old farts making laws about things they know nothing about.
>>> Old farts making laws about things they know nothing about.
We should probably stop saying and believing that. This is basically the UK government making a deal to the developers they cannot refuse: cooperate (install backdoors) or get prosecuted. The French tried to do something similar not so long ago.
A decade ago politicians genuinely didn’t know much about the internet so most of the laws were terribly ill informed good ideas. The new sweep of internet legislation like chat control, age verification and banning of vpns are much more dangerous because those pushing know exactly what they are doing.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on. That would be against everything european governments stand for.
> That would be against everything european governments stand for. I really struggle to understand why the hell this is always only applied to european governments? The idea to take 1984 as a book of requirements seems to extend *far* beyond europe.
There's societal memory of monarchies and kings that held a lot of power that still impacts things to this day, sometimes unconsciously and sometimes consciously.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#35I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.
Intentions of votes for Labour went from 34% in 2019 to 17% or something now. While Reform UK is gaining voters left and right.
But it seems mostly due to a revolt against the "two tier Kharmer" policy of the current government: where normal people are jailed for online posts while others are free to break a female policer's nose at the airport and then be let to walk free by the judge and while others also get to rape hundreds of girls on an industrial scale and enjoy a nation-wide cover-up attempt (thankfully foiled) by the state...
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#36I think there is a point to this. I’m not saying I’m a fan. But the reality is that it is too simple to communicate secretly, and the government has an interest in protecting its citizens. This is true in many aspects. (Health, technology, electronics, traffic) Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where…
>Btw. The https communication comparison does not hold, there is always a third party that can read what you say. E2E chats are effectively communication where evidence is instantly destroyed.
If I use a third party CA this is correct. But what third party can read communications over HTTPS between a client and a server I control with a self signed SSL cert?
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#37I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.
It's always been like this. From the official secrets act where they could jail you just for revealing the date of the office Christmas party to D notices suppressing newspapers from publish stories the government thought were to sensitive. MI5 and MI6 acting totally without accountability, with the government not even acknowledging their existence. If anything, things have started to get more transparent now, with a freedom of information act, actual oversight and accountability for the intelligence services and less government. But the default position of the UK government has always been secrecy and the right to do what they want to protect the country.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#38> He warns that developers of apps like Signal and WhatsApp could technically fall within the legal definition of "hostile activity" simply because their technology "make[s] it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications. Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that. This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the stree…
> This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the streets they walk on. That would be against everything european governments stand for.
[deleted]
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#39I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.
Devolving? Already there. Mostly the public are ok with it because they're ignorant of the facts, believing whatever they read on Facebook, see on GB news[1], etc. and are happy with "if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to be afraid of?"[0]
By the time the leopards eat their faces, it's too late.
[0] Much like the people who voted for Trump and are now slated for deportation because 15 years ago they cashed a check that bounced, etc.
[1] Also the BBC has some blame here because if they weren't platforming Farage for years when it was unnecessary, it's conceivable that he wouldn't/couldn't have forced first the Tories and now Labour into their hard-right turns and we'd all be better off.
Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach
#40I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.
Intentions of votes for Labour went from 34% in 2019 to 17% or something now. While Reform UK is gaining voters left and right. But it seems mostly due to a revolt against the "two tier Kharmer" policy of the current government: where normal people are jailed for online posts while others are free to break a female policer's nose at the airport and then be let to walk free by the judge and while others also get to ra…
Labour have dropped to 17% because their left wing has moved to the greens, Libdems and nationalists. Reform support has stopped growing at 25% and that's mainly Tories moving across. The only people that harp on about "two tier Keir" are the extreme right wing loonies.