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

Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

haddadi.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#111

Post by fauigerzigerk »

tremon wrote: post #95
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would you call left-wing authoritarianism conservative then? I don't think political historians would agree with this designation.

What's the purpose of this exercise? What's the value of equating one emotionally-charged label with a different emotionally-charged label? As to your question: yes, most authoritarians are conservative in nature, given that the world has mostly been moving away from authoritarianism over the past few decades.

My point is very simple: Attitudes (among politicians) toward the surveillance state do not seem to split along political lines between left and right. I wish they did.

Also, I completely disagree that the world has mostly been moving away from authoritarianism. On the contrary. There was a time when at least the direction of travel seemed assured. Now I'm no longer so sure.

[Edit] Just so you know where I'm coming from. As someone who would never remotely associate himself with anything "conservative", I wish I could just blame conservatism or right wing authoritarians for this surveillance drive. But I can't honestly do that, and I have to accept that it is not just a right wing idea historically.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#112

Post by alar44 »

isaacremuant wrote: post #78
a_c wrote: post #44

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.

Most of the populations around the world were in favor of locking people down because the governments, media and tech companies told them to. They were ok with debate being censored because "It was too important and risky". Same thing happened in many countries with terrorism and loss of rights/super authoritarian/inconstitucional powers for govs, and it was fine... Because the risk is too great and "are you a Let's…

[dead]

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#114

Post by halfbrite »

stephen_g wrote: post #66
a_c wrote: post #44

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.

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 public have been sold a lie. Just like the “Patriot Act” was just to keep everybody free and protect people from terrorists.

The public have largely been sold nothing and are completely, blissfully, ignorant of this legislation. The legislation is being pushed through by politicians who have been sold two lies:

1. The legislation, and 2. the idea that the public care.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#115

Post by psychphysic »

scarface_74 wrote: post #96
noduerme wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what the micro-nations were on about, people trying to dredge sand up off reefs and take over drilling platforms since the early 1980s to establish "data havens". The long term trend is that no nation will ultimately resist backdoors on encrypted platforms, because militarily they cannot resist the pressure (internally or externally). The micronation thing is silly, as is relying on a shrinking number of coun…

Yes because Musk cares about “freedom of speech” as long as it is something he agrees with .

What makes you say that?

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#116

Post by tialaramex »

pjc50 wrote: post #86
pessimizer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starmer et al. aren't any less authoritarian than the Tories.

Yeah. "Small-c conservative". Starmer seems to have decided that the path to victory is to copy Tory policy and attitude as closely as possible, hoping that this will get him favourable press coverage or support from the particular set of "floating" voters in marginal constituencies that he needs. But the Labour party have never been especially liberal . They're just as likely to enact controlling social policy. And,…

> (Don't try to jam the American two-party lens onto UK four-plus party politics, it will not help you make sense of the actual situation).

Because the UK has FPTP elections, in practice it's a two party system but which two parties varies by locale, resulting in some weird interactions that aren't really seen in the US.

You aren't going to get elaborate rainbow coalitions under that model, as you might in say Germany.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#117

Post by a_c »

pessimizer wrote: post #59
a_c wrote: post #44

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.

> As I understand it, most UK public are in favour of this bill Do you understand this from polling? Can't trust UK media outlets on public opinion, they push, they don't pull. If the public doesn't agree with them, they all will run variations of the same story, aimed at the same targets, for years until they do.

Honestly It is more an impression than understanding. Maybe the lack of attention in various petitions, e.g. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/601932 Maybe the lack of mentioning of "caveats" of the bill from major news outlet

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#119

Post by classified »

Loquebantur wrote: post #74
stephen_g wrote: post #66

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…

There is no solution to the contradiction inherent in both showing off your ability to craft convoluted sentences and informing the public.
Post reply on HN