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

Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 299 posts

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#61

Post by _bohm »

mosura wrote: post #49
miroljub wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you got heavily downvoted. Yes, there are governments that are worse than European, but the decline of European government is the fastest. You may be surprised that the UK is the world leader in the number of people arrested because of internet posts. And that Germany, which is still way behind the UK, has more people arrested for the same reason than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Belarus,…

Indeed: https://metro.co.uk/2025/12/17/man-jailed-burning-migrant-ho... “An X user who posted two anti-immigration tweets been handed a 18-month jail sentence.” Edit to point out 1. That is a quote and 2. The UK considers this Ok though https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo

Not that I believe people should be jailed for speech, but merely referring to what he said as “anti-immigration” is very much burying the lede

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#63

Post by Kbelicius »

miroljub wrote: post #58
Kbelicius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why you got heavily downvoted. Because his post contributes nothing to the discussion. > Yes, there are governments that are worse than European, but the decline of European government is the fastest. What makes it the fastest? > You may be surprised that the UK is the world leader in the number of people arrested because of internet posts. And that Germany, which is still way behind the UK, has…

The UK arrests 12k people per year for social media posts, using vague laws to undermine free speech. Here's the citation from the EU parliament itself [1], since I doubt you'd believe non-government sources. > That is because Germany and UK are beacons of democracy when compared to the countries that you listed. Read my comment again. The fact that the UK and Germany are in some aspects still better than the ones I…

> The UK arrests 12k people per year for social media posts, using vague laws to undermine free speech.

This doesn't mean anything in isolation.

> Here's the citation from the EU parliament itself [1], since I doubt you'd believe non-government sources.

Do we know each other?

> The fact that the UK and Germany are in some aspects still better than the ones I mentioned doesn't make them beacons of democracy.

No, but there aren't many that are much better so when you take all of that in to account, yes UK an Germany are beacons of democracy.

> It's sad that those countries declined so fast that we are now comparing them.

I already asked this but by what metric are they declining faste?

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#64

Post by Bender »

flowerthoughts wrote: post #17

> 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…

Governments always focus on the tools and not the people. Troubleshooting and resolving the root cause requires work. They do not get paid to work or care meaning they could sit on their hands and still get paid.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#65

Post by random9749832 »

graemep wrote: post #60
zimpenfish wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Also the BBC has some blame here because if they weren't platforming Farage for years Farage is one of the few politicians who has opposed these laws. He wants to repeal the Online Safety Act.

lol, Farage has already backtracked on tax cuts and his stance on deportations. He is a wet noodle and an opportunist.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#66

Post by hirako2000 »

findyoucef wrote: post #48
mosura wrote: post #25

Earlier 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.

They're supposedly against genocide but that hasn't stopped them from shamelessly supporting one.

And messages like these should be monitored. Who knows, we may need to lock all your bank accounts for "suspicious activity".

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#67

Post by random9749832 »

N_Lens wrote: post #9

I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.

Have you spoke to people in the UK? It is a country of complainers but people who can't really 'be asked' to do anything.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#68

Post by hirako2000 »

drumhead wrote: post #37
N_Lens wrote: post #9

I 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…

To protect the country from a government change?

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#69

Post by anonymous908213 »

LunicLynx wrote: post #29

I 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…

   But the reality is that it is too simple to communicate secretly
This is a horrifying thought to be reading on this site of all places, and I can't help but feel that humanity is well and truly screwed if this mentality has seeped this far into the culture. *Communicating secretly is a human right*. A legal right under international law (ICCPR article 17, ECHR article 8), and a constitutional right in any country worth living in. There can not possibly be such a thing as "too simple to exercise your human right to privacy". It's like asserting that it is too simple to choose your line of work, or that it is too simple to live in the city of your choosing.

  and the government has an interest in protecting its citizens
The government has more than an interest, it has a legal obligation to protecting the human rights of its citizens.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#70

Post by ykonstant »

neilalexander wrote: post #14
richsouth wrote: post #11

Developers 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. Who's going to stop them?

Young poops?
Post reply on HN