21–30 of 205 posts
Boris Johnson is shaking at the prospect of "signal" leaving the UK. Isn't that a toothpaste?
He doesn't care about the billions they lose because of Brexit either, or about all the UK expats that now need to leave their cosy retirement homes in Spain and France. Boris cares mostly about Boris. Some people do care though, and most of those people vote. Anyway, Boris doesn't matter anymore.
Yes... they voted brexit :')
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the bill will pass in its current form. Can't see it happening.
I don't know, man. After Brexit, it feels anything can happen.
The recent legislation undermining of protests being one of them.
I can see it happening too.
incredible if UK were to ban Signal, but I guess national sovereignty and security are always going to be higher priorities for the state than user sentiment
Security is another practical nonsense. You don't need to use Signal to encrypt things, anonymous or encrypted communications existed since the dawn of times and will continue to exist no matter what the governments want to do. Criminals will always be able to use one time pad encryption at will, so raping everyone's rights to communication and privacy in the name of security and sovereignty is just a false pretext.
> The government, and prominent child protection charities have long argued that encryption hinders efforts to combat online child abuse - which they say is a growing problem. So take using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What they should be doing, is rather then increase the risk of for the majority who use encryption for valid reasons (privacy, not nefarious), is invest in services to allow individuals to gain help,…
> The government, and prominent child protection charities have long argued that encryption hinders efforts to combat online child abuse - which they say is a growing problem. So take using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What they should be doing, is rather then increase the risk of for the majority who use encryption for valid reasons (privacy, not nefarious), is invest in services to allow individuals to gain help,…
It is worse. Encryption does protect children instead of endangering them. So these "charities" aren't even doing their job.
incredible if UK were to ban Signal, but I guess national sovereignty and security are always going to be higher priorities for the state than user sentiment
Sovereignty on Internet in the Internet age is a nonsense; Internet is not the possession of a government, participating to the Internet at country level (dot uk) is voluntary, if UK wants to get out of Internet as a mesh of interconnected computer networks then it is free to go back to the Dark Ages. Security is another practical nonsense. You don't need to use Signal to encrypt things, anonymous or encrypted commun…
The digital world of the internet exists within physical, analog metal boxes that reside within and thusly are subject to the legal jurisdictions of countries.
incredible if UK were to ban Signal, but I guess national sovereignty and security are always going to be higher priorities for the state than user sentiment
I don't think the bill will pass in its current form. Can't see it happening.
Isn't this situation the entire purpose of Signal..? Don't they already operate in the most authoritarian countries in the world? I don't understand why they would walk.
In UK if Signal has any offices or employees, the UK government can force Signal to either put a backdoor in the product or move out of the country. The second choice is what Signal said it will do, it makes perfect sense - leave instead of bend over.
I suspect if they did, the funding for the project might see a cut. Russians (gov) would get annoyed since apparently they have broken or bypassed Signal's encryption. Brits would get annoyed because they can't use something they've funded.
Got a source for that?