Live data from Hacker News

Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

theregister.com

211–220 of 292 posts

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#211
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair (a) I don't think he was trying to do that, and (b) I'm struggling to think of an argument that would shine good light on brexit voters ? Perhaps that they're wonderfully trusting people who believe whatever politicians that Gary down the pub thinks are the best ?

The idea of independence wasn't ridiculous, it's just the details made it hard to make it work.

The problem is the idea was not credible.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#213
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Destruction of evidence is a crime. They'd have to prove there was evidence.

Yes, they would have to prove that there was incriminating data on the phone. However, destroying potential evidence before there is suspicion of a crime is also a crime if done with intent to undermine a future investigation. It's quite unadvisable to destroy data in front of any sort of law enforcement. Last ditch effort? Sure, you better your odds but it's not ideal. If you have evidence of a crime, you know, wipe…

You keep saying "potential evidence." What does that even mean? If I factory reset my phone right now, am I guilty of destroying "potential evidence?" Do you have "potential evidence" on any of your devices? Let's not make up phrases to help justify what they were doing. There was either an actual crime committed, and wiping the phone destroyed real evidence. Or there was not. You can't just consider all data everywhere to be "potential evidence" while you look around for some kind of crime that it's evidence of.

If it was evidence, what was the crime?

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#214
post #22
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works better with an informed electorate. However, one of the reasons that voters don't bother informing themselves is the campaign of cynicism aimed at convincing them that all political parties are the same, that their vote doesn't matter, etc. etc. One might just as well say that an informed population requires democracy: why bother keeping track of national policy if you have no control over it? In the days af…

Yes, you're entirely right. One further, I was at a talk from a law professor at a big uni once, where he had printed the entire text of the Medicare bill on a giant pile of paper. He explained that it had taken him, a professor, several months full-time to understand everything at stake; what chance has a representative to do so, let alone on every bill? What chance has a voter? What does it mean for democracy that…

A truly wonderful point. Some attacks on low-information voters in other comments which I understand but none of us have read that whole Medicare bill. That’s even if we don’t have three jobs and six kids. Considerations when we reach for “lazy” or “dumb” to describe voters.

Boy, the number of hours to research candidates & propositions on the last ballot in California…

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21. Why? Brexit will impact 16 year olds for decades. A large number of the old farts who voted for it are dead now and won't have to suffer the consequences. If you're going to adjust voting ages but don't want to lower it, it makes sense that those over 75 don't get a say in something like Brexit. And if your thought is that 16 year olds d…

Well if you're dismissive of an entire generation by calling them 'old farts', I'm not sure I can take you 'better informed 16 years old' argument seriously.

Re-read the sentence. It wasn't referring to an entire generation.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#216

In the US we have tech companies complying with sketchy DHS subpoenas that don’t require warrants. We have DoJ targeting political enemies. We have FISA mass surveillance. It’s naive to think politically motivated surveillance can’t happen in the UK and elsewhere. Or to assume that only the “right people” will be the ones able to break encryption.

> It’s naive to think politically motivated surveillance can’t happen in the UK and elsewhere. It's naive to think it isn't already happening in the UK and elsewhere and has for a long time. The only thing technology is changing is to increase the depth and scope of what they surveil.

Technology has the scale. The billionaire giants have unprecedented amounts of data -- Soviet Russia, Nazi germany, they'd have loved this level of insight.

But worse that that, they have a population that thinks its fine as long as it's not the government, its just the free market doing its thing, and it's all about freedom for the most powerful

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#217
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US we have tech companies complying with sketchy DHS subpoenas that don’t require warrants. We have DoJ targeting political enemies. We have FISA mass surveillance. You also have a president who has just said he will "report" a journalist to the FCC for "rebuke or punishment". I regret to inform people that fear over people cracking your encryption is quite niche, at this point; you have a looming fascist re…

I’ll have you know that due to inflation $5 is no longer a reasonable price even for a very cheap wrench!

It's the government, I'm sure the wrench will cost $50,000 and some oligarch will be taking 99% of that as a back hander.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#218
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%

Turnout was about 72%, so really it was (approx) Leave 37%, Remain 35%, Don’t Know/Care 28%. Also worth pointing out that the hard Brexit we got, where we left Schengen and abandoned much of our cross-European programmes, was almost unthinkable, and not seriously considered by the media. Whenever it was brought up, it was decried as “project fear” by those who pushed for it.

UK was never part of the Schengen area, there was only cooperation in the form of information exchange and similar.

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#219
post #81

I am not convinced they do, they keep voting to give away their privacy every year.

Every political party in the UK supports things like the Digital Rights Act. So what is a person to do?

What Digital Rights Act are you referring to?

Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private

#220

I am not convinced they do, they keep voting to give away their privacy every year.

No, they don't. Turnout in the UK has dropped significantly because it doesn't matter who you vote for, the outcome is the same.

I've seen a lot of changes going through since 2024, and I saw a lot of difference between the 2010-15 coalition and the 2015-24 conservative administration, or the 1997-2010 labour administration.
Post reply on HN