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

121–130 of 164 posts

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

#121

Post by LatteLazy »

When you have nothing to offer on real issues (inflation, housing, pay, jobs, transport, health, education, social mobility etc), you have to constantly whip up fear over non-issues (people online). (both with the general population, and your own back benches)

Once you have have spent years whipping up fear over non-issues, you inevitably have to do something about them.

But you cannot actually do something that doesn't have side effect worse than the intended effect. But you can't just admit that or walk away. You have convinced your electorate these are the number 1 issues facing the nation.

So you write a law that's meaningless nonsense, and poop it out into Parliament.

That is how we got this bill. That's how we got Brexit.

Whether we can overcome this sort of disfunction will basically decide whether algo-sphere style democracy is sustainable...

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

#122

Post by [deleted] »

bavell wrote: post #80
zarzavat wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You much overestimate how politically involved the UK public is. Most people don’t know what this bill is. In the UK there’s a concept of the “Westminster bubble”. Politicians believe that people care deeply about “online safety”, which is all that matters really.

Known as "DC brain worms" here in the US

[deleted]

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

#123

Post by scarface_74 »

psychphysic wrote: post #115
scarface_74 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What makes you say that?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/12/16/...

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

#124

Post by psychphysic »

scarface_74 wrote: post #123
psychphysic wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say that?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/12/16/...

I'm not going to read that. Unless you're the opinion columnist for USA today? Cause I asked you about your opinion.

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

#125

Post by ElevenLathe »

raxxorraxor wrote: post #99
martinralbrecht wrote: post #2

"As independent information security and cryptography researchers, we build technologies that keep people safe online. It is in this capacity that we see the need to stress that the safety provided by these essential technologies is now under threat in the Online Safety Bill."

Europe has similar bills with chat control. There was no serious expert that did not warn about the severe negative repercussions. Representatives still didn't seem to be interested and the EU isn't particular democratic so anyone could be held to account. I think technology must provide ways to ensure free and secure communication without a possibility of surveillance. The political class cannot be entrusted to shie…

I agree generally, but we have to be realistic that decentralization/onion routing/public key encryption and all the other technical tricks at our disposal will only slow the corporations/the state down. Yes, it convenient for the FBI to have a web form to be able to get access to your gmail inbox or whatever, but they will happily just arrest you and beat you with a wrench until you give them your private keys.

The truth is that power (aka money) is heavily concentrated in global society. It's a worthwhile goal to break it up, and maybe there are some technical tricks to help people toward that end, but even if we woke up tomorrow with a perfectly decentralized and anonymous network culture, we would still be under the rule of oil interests/unelected bureaucrats/unaccountable intelligence agencies/the finance industry/your bogeyman of choice.

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

#126

Post by scarface_74 »

psychphysic wrote: post #124
scarface_74 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/12/16/...

I'm not going to read that. Unless you're the opinion columnist for USA today? Cause I asked you about your opinion.

Is it an “opinion” that Elon Musk blocked links to Mastadon and the account that was tracking his plane using publicly available information?

Or do you just refuse to read anything that contradicts your world view?

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

#127

Post by lrvick »

psychphysic wrote: post #22

Bigger question how will safe messaging apps exit the market? Will people need a number for a privacy friendly foreign nation to continue access?

Federated message systems like Matrix already exist and are unaffected even if legislation like this passes.

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

#128

Post by lrvick »

noduerme wrote: post #42
psychphysic wrote: post #22

Bigger question how will safe messaging apps exit the market? Will people need a number for a privacy friendly foreign nation to continue access?

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…

Or just used decentralized e2ee comms that already exist?

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

#129

Post by lrvick »

tjpnz wrote: post #26
psychphysic wrote: post #22

Bigger question how will safe messaging apps exit the market? Will people need a number for a privacy friendly foreign nation to continue access?

The apps would be delisted in the UK app stores and will eventually stop working for existing users when not updated. That's also a security issue in itself.

Stop using centralized software distribution systems. F-Droid, Debian etc are run by international communities, support Tor, and cannot be censored as long as we maintain access to the internet.

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

#130

Post by opo »

scarface_74 wrote: post #91
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.

As far as the Patriot Act, when Max Cleland came out against it, the Republicans claimed he “didn’t love his country”. Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam. None of his opponents had ever served.

The only senator who voted against the Patriot Act was Russ Feingold.

>...On October 25, the Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98–1. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted "no"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#:~:text=The%20thre....

Post reply on HN