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

UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 320 posts

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#151

Post by daveoc64 »

merpnderp wrote: post #34

The real question is why did they want this? Is the UK suffering some giant crime wave or are the powers that be just really intent on making sure people are using Bad Think in their private chats?

The bill covers a wide range of topics including cyber bullying, online scams and fraud, hate speech, content moderation, terrorism.

The basic premise is that online platforms like Facebook and X will have more legal responsibility and requirements to follow particular UK law and guidance on content that their platforms host.

This is very popular with the press and enjoys widespread public support in polling. All major political parties support it.

The encryption and scanning aspects of it are just one part of the bill.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#152

Post by midasuni »

developer93 wrote: post #124
midasuni wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

David Davis is somewhat unusual - he actually resigned as MP to protest against an erosion of civil liberties (and stood on a civil liberty platform) Westminster will be a worse place when he goes, which I assume will be in next year’s election.

He knew he would get reelected though, it was more about publicity for the cause than principal.

Oh no someone championing civil liberties

You don’t get many MPs doing that - especially Tory ones.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#153

Post by phero_cnstrcts »

jiveturkey wrote: post #92
makingstuffs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d bet my life we start to see a massive influx of bad press aimed at messaging providers, focusing on how criminals are using their services, over the next few years. When the general sentiment of the average Dave is ‘encryption === bad’ this BS will rear its head again. Seems to have been the standard play for governments of this country for decades now.

Yes, so much so that there's a term for this: manufactured consent.

Problem, reaction, solution.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#154

Post by skydhash »

yafbum wrote: post #147

Unpopular puffin opinion ahead, for the sake of argument only. Pls respond with arguments vs just downvoting. Throughout history, encryption has always been a government privilege. Only very recently, and then only in the West, practically speaking, is encryption that is safe from the eyes of government available. The liberalization of encryption has been concomitant with a naive "end of history" belief that once eve…

> And so my prediction is that we will see a reversal to the mean of history, and cryptography become again a govt granted privilege with conditions attached.

Electronic financial transactions (banking, e-commerce,...) and commercial communications are two main reasons we won't see this. Too much impact on the economic levels and the government already have access to this data, so it will be just cons, no pro.

You won't catch bad actors, they will move to illegal services and protocols. I think the voice of reason just prevailed and they realized that it's a bad idea. The only next step I can see is the requirement for data persistence to be done inside the country.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#157

Post by ncallaway »

rightbyte wrote: post #63
orlp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To revive this, they would have to find an expert to attest that it is technically feasible to have security with a backdoor that government can access, but at the same time is impossible for malicious entities to access. > Ergo, this is technically dead, which is the best form of dead. Except it's not. There exist such cryptographic trapdoor constructions that are perfectly secure, if the government backdoor key i…

Ye I find it somewhat amusing that sharing a private key with the government is technically impossible. I guess you could be philosophical about whether it is private though, in that case. Anyway, I am gladly surprised they seem to back off.

The part that's technically impossible is _keeping that key secure_.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/master-key-for-tsa-approved-locks...

More importantly, the thing that's technically impossible is a scheme to detect that the key has become compromised before it is used maliciously.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#158

Post by rollcat »

giobox wrote: post #84
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true, is it? If so that's slightly terrifying.

I think its increasingly true of several countries, not just the UK. Any State with strong Freedom of Information legislation not surprisingly creates incentives for certain political operatives to want to avoid exposure by use of unofficial channels further out of reach of FoI - private WhatsApp groups etc etc. I don't see this as any different than the instances of private email service mischief that has occurred i…

I think that if you hold a position in the government, all of your communication (including private email, chats, etc) should be subject to public scrutiny. A government official should be defined not as someone who is holding power, but as an elected representative of the people.

Re: UK pulls back from clash with Big Tech over private messaging

#159

Post by untitaker_ »

sys_64738 wrote: post #156

I’d like to see social media companies taking the opportunity to cut off all services to this country. Use them as an example so other nations don’t get any wild ideas.

brilliant idea. let those governments know who really rules the world. we already have a bunch of dictatorships censoring the internet on purpose, so let's do their job for countries whose democratic processes can't do it for them.
Post reply on HN