UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications • Hacker News Board

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#131

Post by _-david-_ » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 6:57 AM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #43

adventured wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United Kingdom is a monarchy ruled by Queen Elizabeth (the mother of Andrew), even though the British people go far out of their way to pretend that's not the case. It's why Boris Johnson had to meet with the queen about forming a new government. Why is she involved at all? It's because she rules the United Kingdom in fact. Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]), that's quite relevant to the co…

> Shall we pretend that the family that has ruled Britain for 1200 years has no political power? Har har. That's like saying the Church of England still has significant political power. it still has the ability to take tithes, although they are mostly optional. The present royal family only really dates back to victoria, I mean sure they are tangentially related to the german/dutch/scots/danish that ruled before, but…

>and dissolve parliament

The monarchy no longer has that power. It was removed a decade ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2...

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#132

Post by kzzzznot » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 7:53 AM UTC

> “A glass box is installed in a public space,” the presentation notes. “Inside the box, there are two actors; one child and one adult. Both strangers. The child sits playing on their smart phone. At the other end of the box, we see an adult sat on a chair also on their phone, typing away.

> “The adult occasionally looks over at the child, knowingly. Intermittently through the day, the ‘privacy glass’ will turn on and the previously transparent glass box will become opaque. Passers by won’t be able to see what’s happening inside. In other words, we create a sense of unease by hiding what the child and adult are doing online when their interaction can’t be seen.”

This is bizarre and confused, sounds like something from Brass Eye/The Day Today.[1] The “privacy glass” doesn’t make you wonder what they’re talking about online, it’s what’s happening in a confined box between a stranger and a child. Before the “privacy” glass is activated, you can’t see what they’re doing on their phones anyway.

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=SRRw1ERj2Gc

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#133

Post by kilotaras » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 8:24 AM UTC

ed_balls wrote: post #126

messo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication (government email, phone etc) when discussing anything related to their public service. Citizens can demand to get access to these communications, even anonymously. This has made it possible for regular citizens to uncover both small and big abuses of power through the years, most recently exemplified by a close connection betwee…

> Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication Is it really enforacble? What are the sanctions for breaking the law? What if someone says it's a national secuirty matter? Scenario nr 1: You are a misiter and you are discussing possible scenarios about a given event (let say something like an abortion). Should pulbic have full access to it? Scenario nr 2: You are a minister…

> Foregin corporation wants to keep it secret before the deal is reached. How can you communicate?

Foreign corporation wants to do X but X is banned in country.

We don't accept that for minimum wages, discrimination laws, pollution laws, etc. Why should communication laws be any different?

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#134

Post by MagnumOpus » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 9:42 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #41

tialaramex wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the present UK government also broke a whole bunch of other laws, so, why would they care if it's illegal? The current British Prime Minister was literally fired from a previous job as a journalist because he can't stop telling lies. It's worth making a distinction from Trump here. Trump wasn't a liar, Trump was a bullshitter . A Liar knows what the truth is, and is trying to convince you of a falsehood, bull…

Given that distinction between liar and bullshitter, I think Johnson is not even capable of comprehending that “truth” is a concept, let alone that other people can and do judge him for saying untrue things. Main example that gives me this belief is this: https://youtu.be/wzUDRyciqVM Where Boris Johnson says “well actually there’s no press here” to a man who responds by turning to and pointing out the press cameras f…

> Johnson is not even capable of comprehending

Alex Johnson was scholarship boy at Eton and writing books about Shakespeare is his hobby. He is very well capable of comprehending abstract concepts and manipulating their perception to his benefit. He publicly portrays himself as "Boris the bumbling fool" but unlike Trump does not act like that in private. The fact that he is unethical and lazy does not mean he is stupid, and it is a dangerous assumption to make.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#135

Post by MagnumOpus » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 9:54 AM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #122

adventured wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United Kingdom is a monarchy ruled by Queen Elizabeth (the mother of Andrew), even though the British people go far out of their way to pretend that's not the case. It's why Boris Johnson had to meet with the queen about forming a new government. Why is she involved at all? It's because she rules the United Kingdom in fact. Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]), that's quite relevant to the co…

> Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]), Try a bit over 100. The House of Windsor ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom in the misty past of … 1901. Even if we disregard royal houses and look at just successions then you run into some awkward situations pretty early, including a nice run of kings born in Hanover and speaking primarily German. A lot of royalist propaganda is an attempt to ti…

> House of Windsor ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom in the misty past of … 1901

Just because the 1901 successor to the monarchy (Ed 7) was the son of a reigning queen (Vicky) rather than the son of a king does not make him unrelated to the previous dynasty. Agnatic primogeniture is just as much a bronze age concept as a particular family lording it over everyone by the gods' grace...

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#136

Post by ashtonkem » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 1:09 PM UTC

MagnumOpus wrote: post #135

ashtonkem wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Andrew's family rules Britain (for what, 1200 years? [1]), Try a bit over 100. The House of Windsor ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom in the misty past of … 1901. Even if we disregard royal houses and look at just successions then you run into some awkward situations pretty early, including a nice run of kings born in Hanover and speaking primarily German. A lot of royalist propaganda is an attempt to ti…

> House of Windsor ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom in the misty past of … 1901 Just because the 1901 successor to the monarchy (Ed 7) was the son of a reigning queen (Vicky) rather than the son of a king does not make him unrelated to the previous dynasty. Agnatic primogeniture is just as much a bronze age concept as a particular family lording it over everyone by the gods' grace...

It’s a useful metric because that’s how the royal family sees itself. It can’t both claim to be a new dynasty and to have ruled England for over 1000 years at the same time.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#137

Post by ben_w » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 3:39 PM UTC

MagnumOpus wrote: post #134

ben_w wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that distinction between liar and bullshitter, I think Johnson is not even capable of comprehending that “truth” is a concept, let alone that other people can and do judge him for saying untrue things. Main example that gives me this belief is this: https://youtu.be/wzUDRyciqVM Where Boris Johnson says “well actually there’s no press here” to a man who responds by turning to and pointing out the press cameras f…

> Johnson is not even capable of comprehending Alex Johnson was scholarship boy at Eton and writing books about Shakespeare is his hobby. He is very well capable of comprehending abstract concepts and manipulating their perception to his benefit. He publicly portrays himself as "Boris the bumbling fool" but unlike Trump does not act like that in private. The fact that he is unethical and lazy does not mean he is stup…

IQ is a separate axis to what I’m saying. A person with prosopagnosia need not be stupid, they just lack the particular neural structures allowing face recognition. What I’m saying is like (but with much looser language than) saying Johnston lacks the neural structure for comprehension of the concept of truth.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#138

Post by ed_balls » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

kilotaras wrote: post #133

ed_balls wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication Is it really enforacble? What are the sanctions for breaking the law? What if someone says it's a national secuirty matter? Scenario nr 1: You are a misiter and you are discussing possible scenarios about a given event (let say something like an abortion). Should pulbic have full access to it? Scenario nr 2: You are a minister…

> Foregin corporation wants to keep it secret before the deal is reached. How can you communicate? Foreign corporation wants to do X but X is banned in country. We don't accept that for minimum wages, discrimination laws, pollution laws, etc. Why should communication laws be any different?

But there are law that limit the communications e.g. insider trading.

Imagine a public corporation that wants to build a factory, but wants to keep to secret for now, cause they don't want the competition to know or affect the share price.

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#139

Post by tialaramex » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #41

tialaramex wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the present UK government also broke a whole bunch of other laws, so, why would they care if it's illegal? The current British Prime Minister was literally fired from a previous job as a journalist because he can't stop telling lies. It's worth making a distinction from Trump here. Trump wasn't a liar, Trump was a bullshitter . A Liar knows what the truth is, and is trying to convince you of a falsehood, bull…

Given that distinction between liar and bullshitter, I think Johnson is not even capable of comprehending that “truth” is a concept, let alone that other people can and do judge him for saying untrue things. Main example that gives me this belief is this: https://youtu.be/wzUDRyciqVM Where Boris Johnson says “well actually there’s no press here” to a man who responds by turning to and pointing out the press cameras f…

Boris knows the press are there, they're the only reason he's even talking to that man. Off camera Boris would ignore him completely. But "Boris doesn't know this obvious TV camera is pointed at him" is charming buffoonery. "Boris is intentionally destroying the NHS to kill your grandparents" is something you might want to vote against.

Some politicians would try to engage on the issues, but a ten minute debate in a hospital corridor isn't going to make the highlight news even if your well-rehearsed answers work, and it might not even get reported in rolling news if there's man falling into a vat of blancmange or something that gets laughs. "Boris doesn't know the cameras are there" works.

And sure enough, it worked on you as intended and you've taken away the message Boris wanted you thinking about. Boris doesn't want your respect, Boris wants power and has since childhood.

Much more recently Boris hid in a (walk-in) fridge. Ha ha ha. But wait, why did he hide in a fridge? Well that's funny and it made the news and is still used in memes, whereas "Boris refuses to answer important questions" looks a bit like maybe we shouldn't have him as leader, doesn't it...

Re: UK government plans publicity blitz against encrypted communications

#140

Post by messo » Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

ed_balls wrote: post #126

messo wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication (government email, phone etc) when discussing anything related to their public service. Citizens can demand to get access to these communications, even anonymously. This has made it possible for regular citizens to uncover both small and big abuses of power through the years, most recently exemplified by a close connection betwee…

> Norwegian politicians are required by law to only use official channels of communication Is it really enforacble? What are the sanctions for breaking the law? What if someone says it's a national secuirty matter? Scenario nr 1: You are a misiter and you are discussing possible scenarios about a given event (let say something like an abortion). Should pulbic have full access to it? Scenario nr 2: You are a minister…

The law ("Offentlighetsloven") is quite nuanced and take into account a lot of different situations and edge cases. The law does not only apply to politicians, but to every public servant in any position.

The law is available in Norwegian here, if you want to run it trough a machine translation service and have a look: https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2003-30/id38285...