101–110 of 164 posts
As I understand it, most UK public are in favour of this bill almost Pavlovianly. There is a clear disconnect between us, the tech know-how, and the general public.
Propaganda works wonders as usual
You can discuss how high that cost should be, but there is a cost to state surveillance as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While not the UK you might have heard of this letter from a tiny number of technical experts on a politically sensitive technical topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_let...
Yes. Context: The President it was addressed to had been working to prepare for war against Germany for most of a year. Einstein's "famous, politically ~neutral super-genius" reputation was far loftier than that of any signatory to this Open Letter. And it warned the U.S. President about a super-powerful type of bomb which Germany might develop (and use against the U.S.A.) during a period when both bomber and bombing…
This actually happens all the time between experts and legislators, they just call it lobbying and it unfortunately lacks the “neutrality” that should be assumed, corrupting the whole thing in the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
kill; e-commerce, in store payment terminals, online banking, all https, email, biometric passports etc. It would be a return to the pre internet era, so probably is the will of the people and on form for the UK. I kind of hope they pass it then realise what it actually means.
> kill; e-commerce, in store payment terminals, online banking, all https, email, biometric passports etc. Hold on! Kill all HTTPS? Biometric passports? I haven't tried to read the bill, but AFAIK there are no provisions in the bill that attack HTPPS, and given that biometric passports are not a communications technology, I don't see how they could be impacted. I don't see how the bill impacts email at all; opportuni…
TLS / HTTPS would be included in my definition; the purpose of which is that the two parties are the only ones that can see the traffic.
Sigh... Beyond the security researchers' own little "computer savvy 1%" bubble, is there any intended audience for such Open Letters? Could they actually communicate with normal people if they (somehow) wanted to? Are there laws in the UK that make it too risky to just say something like "This bill will make it so much easier for the next Wayne Couzens to find his perfect Sarah Everard."?
Most likely the intended audience is the press. Now that this letter has been published, journalists can write stories like "Online Safety Bill Under Fire From Security Experts", which make the issue digestible to a lay audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Context: The President it was addressed to had been working to prepare for war against Germany for most of a year. Einstein's "famous, politically ~neutral super-genius" reputation was far loftier than that of any signatory to this Open Letter. And it warned the U.S. President about a super-powerful type of bomb which Germany might develop (and use against the U.S.A.) during a period when both bomber and bombing…
Totally concur - the point I was making that you revealed well is “The author is all that matters” This actually happens all the time between experts and legislators, they just call it lobbying and it unfortunately lacks the “neutrality” that should be assumed, corrupting the whole thing in the process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, I think the only way for that situation to change is for enough members of the general public to be caught up in some kind of accidental suspicion or publication of their personal data. And I think those who are proposing these kinds of bills know this, and are protected by how unlikely it would be to reach any kind of critical mass organically. I'm sure there are laws against the encouragement of othe…
Or for WhatsApp to stop working.
Should — but based on what else this particular group have demonstrated about understanding cause and effect, won't.
They don't care what the people want after campaign season is over, however they will back off from anything that generates genuine outcry, for a while, then they'll try it again later.
Sigh... Beyond the security researchers' own little "computer savvy 1%" bubble, is there any intended audience for such Open Letters? Could they actually communicate with normal people if they (somehow) wanted to? Are there laws in the UK that make it too risky to just say something like "This bill will make it so much easier for the next Wayne Couzens to find his perfect Sarah Everard."?
How so?
The media has only to gain, imagine the extra sales they will get from publishing all the future leaks that will occur.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The public have been sold a lie. Just like the “Patriot Act” was just to keep everybody free and protect people from terrorists. It happens everywhere, and has been happening for a long time - it’s more about the narrative made up by the people pushing a law than what the law actually does. It would take a particularly free, particularly good media to inform the public that just doesn’t exist in most of the world.
The complacency of researchers knowledgeable in these topics should be noted as well. With great power comes great responsibility, as Spiderman states correctly. This letter is a "nice try", but pretty late and lacking media-awareness. People certainly won't read a 4-page PDF. They should have led with: > There is no technological solution to the contradiction inherent in both keeping information confidential from th…