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

UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

noplacetohide.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#111

Post by CodeGlitch »

Youden wrote: post #107
styeco wrote: post #25

Sorry for the choice words, but shit like this makes my blood boil. You're not trying to "keep our children safe" motherfucker, and you know it. You're trying to prevent people from being able to have private conversations, so your secret agencies can harvest all the data from everyone easily. To phrase it as "but think of the children" is instrumentalizing the actual victims of child abuse and you should be ashamed.

You might not realize it but there really are people who honestly, genuinely, in their heart-of-hearts think this way and if you want to have a chance at inducing real change in the world, you need to acknowledge that they exist and see things from their point of view. It's easy to forget but not everyone lives in a bubble full of privacy-conscious techfolk. There are people whose children were groomed online and con…

This is the best comment in this thread.

I would add that some may see E2EE as important, but protection of vulnerable as *more* important. Life just isn't so black & white.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#113

Post by VVVExobyte »

Arathorn wrote: post #109
eptcyka wrote: post #12

Previous discussion can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29978952

This isn’t really a dupe ftr; the previous comments were about a leak of the campaign - whereas the campaign is now launched and it needs all the attention it can get to avoid the UK trying to legislate against E2EE… cc dang

No post body was provided.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#114

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

maxerickson wrote: post #103
collegeburner wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1930s machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, destructive devices and AOWs got a $200 tax, cost prohibative at the time for most people. 1960s more restrictions on FFLs and on types of guns especially imports, both raise prices and reduce availability more. 1980s new transferrable machineguns banned so now existing ones cost more than a car. 1990s handgun age raised to 21. And you steppers keep saying "it's n…

We should amend the constitution and then make permitted ownership of single shot bolt action rifles the only widespread form of personal gun ownership. Plenty capable enough for sport hunting. That would be enough. There would be people made less safe by such a restrictive regime! Of course a much larger number would be safer. Tradeoffs are exactly what they sound like.

Nitpick: "single shot" and "bolt action" are a contradiction in terms. A "single shot" rifle has no magazine, only a single cartridge can be loaded at once. A "bolt action" rifle has a magazine to hold more than one cartridge, with a bolt that the user manually actuates to eject a spent case and load a new cartridge from the magazine.

If actually proposing legislation such distinctions would be important. For an internet discussion what you meant is clear enough.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#115

Post by collegeburner »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #114
maxerickson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should amend the constitution and then make permitted ownership of single shot bolt action rifles the only widespread form of personal gun ownership. Plenty capable enough for sport hunting. That would be enough. There would be people made less safe by such a restrictive regime! Of course a much larger number would be safer. Tradeoffs are exactly what they sound like.

Nitpick: "single shot" and "bolt action" are a contradiction in terms. A "single shot" rifle has no magazine, only a single cartridge can be loaded at once. A "bolt action" rifle has a magazine to hold more than one cartridge, with a bolt that the user manually actuates to eject a spent case and load a new cartridge from the magazine. If actually proposing legislation such distinctions would be important. For an inte…

Not quite no. There are plenty of bolt action rifles with no magazine, they're still bolt action. Like there are other single shots that aren't bolt action, and there are other bolt action single shot. Stupid policy this person is proposing but their language is technically correct.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#116

Post by collegeburner »

maxerickson wrote: post #103
collegeburner wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1930s machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, destructive devices and AOWs got a $200 tax, cost prohibative at the time for most people. 1960s more restrictions on FFLs and on types of guns especially imports, both raise prices and reduce availability more. 1980s new transferrable machineguns banned so now existing ones cost more than a car. 1990s handgun age raised to 21. And you steppers keep saying "it's n…

We should amend the constitution and then make permitted ownership of single shot bolt action rifles the only widespread form of personal gun ownership. Plenty capable enough for sport hunting. That would be enough. There would be people made less safe by such a restrictive regime! Of course a much larger number would be safer. Tradeoffs are exactly what they sound like.

Police states tend to reduce crime very well. They're still wrong. And i hope if somebody like you ever gets power and tries to do this Americans resist them by force.

We should uphold the Constution as it is now and remove every single gun law.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#117

Post by maxerickson »

collegeburner wrote: post #116
maxerickson wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should amend the constitution and then make permitted ownership of single shot bolt action rifles the only widespread form of personal gun ownership. Plenty capable enough for sport hunting. That would be enough. There would be people made less safe by such a restrictive regime! Of course a much larger number would be safer. Tradeoffs are exactly what they sound like.

Police states tend to reduce crime very well. They're still wrong. And i hope if somebody like you ever gets power and tries to do this Americans resist them by force. We should uphold the Constution as it is now and remove every single gun law.

Citizen resistance against a modern military is largely a LARP fantasy.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#118

Post by collegeburner »

maxerickson wrote: post #117
collegeburner wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police states tend to reduce crime very well. They're still wrong. And i hope if somebody like you ever gets power and tries to do this Americans resist them by force. We should uphold the Constution as it is now and remove every single gun law.

Citizen resistance against a modern military is largely a LARP fantasy.

Nah counterinsurgency is very hard to win actually. See Afghanistan.

Regardless this is why citizens need modern military equipment.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#119

Post by nathanaldensr »

maxerickson wrote: post #117
collegeburner wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police states tend to reduce crime very well. They're still wrong. And i hope if somebody like you ever gets power and tries to do this Americans resist them by force. We should uphold the Constution as it is now and remove every single gun law.

Citizen resistance against a modern military is largely a LARP fantasy.

You assume that:

1. there are enough armed forces personnel to police the third or fourth largest country by land mass in the world (the United States)

2. that every single armed forces personnel would unquestioningly obey what constitutes illegal orders (military deployment on American soil)

3. that the entire population would simply sit down and let themselves be overrun by the military.

I think you should check your assumptions.

Re: UK launches “No Place To Hide” propaganda campaign to ban E2EE

#120

Post by dragonwriter »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #119
maxerickson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizen resistance against a modern military is largely a LARP fantasy.

You assume that: 1. there are enough armed forces personnel to police the third or fourth largest country by land mass in the world (the United States) 2. that every single armed forces personnel would unquestioningly obey what constitutes illegal orders (military deployment on American soil) 3. that the entire population would simply sit down and let themselves be overrun by the military. I think you should check yo…

> there are enough armed forces personnel to police the third or fourth largest country by land mass in the world (the United States)

If you count the standing paramilitary forces (“police") that work for the government and do this job already, plus all the other armed forces, that's not that much of a stretch.

> that every single armed forces personnel would unquestioningly obey what constitutes illegal orders (military deployment on American soil)

Military deployment on US soil is not illegal. (That would make defensive war, as well as suppression of armed rebellion, impossible.)

Military deployment to enforce domestic order isn't illegal, either, though for federal regular military troops there are procedural requirements for it under the Insurrection Act (mostly, a completely discretionary Presidential determination of one of several specific kinds of need—some of which involve a request from a state governor and some of which do not—and particular notifications to the civilian population and any potential insurgents before employment of the military for certain uses.) State forces not called in to federal service may have their own procedural rules for law enforcement deployments, but most state forces can also be activated federally under federal rules.

Post reply on HN