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

Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 299 posts

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#231

Post by joe463369 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #112
eterm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, the transparency we do have in the UK is weaponised against it. You see this with "OMG knife-crime is out of control in London" type stories that the US love to run. It's because we were : 1. a decade or more ahead of the rest of the world in actually collecting knife-crime stats 2. Include in those stats people who were simply carrying the kind of knife that wouldn't even get you noticed elsewhere, let a…

> The actual rate of stabbings per capita is higher in the USA than the UK. This fact seems to have no impact on UK politicians who now want to try to ban knives with pointy tips: https://theconversation.com/why-stopping-knife-crime-needs-t... In general, this approach to crime is ridiculous and has no rational end-point.

There is nothing in your link that says that the UK government is considering banning knives with pointy tips

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#233

Post by christkv »

joe463369 wrote: post #227
simianparrot wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can’t even prosecute grooming gangs, the pretence it’s about “the children” rings completely hollow. The UK is a failing nation run by pedophile apologist imbeciles. This is just desperate flailing to hold onto power by any means.

The UK can and does prosecute grooming gangs.

Yeah after hiding it for decades and then trying to bury it in inquiries after public outrage.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#234

Post by eYrKEC2 »

flowerthoughts wrote: post #17

> He warns that developers of apps like Signal and WhatsApp could technically fall within the legal definition of "hostile activity" simply because their technology "make[s] it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications. Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that. This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the stree…

> Today, someone can post a Telegram group message and make thousands of people rally to a town square. I see the dangers, and I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people.

Yes. Previously this capability was reserved for the CIA.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#235

Post by germandiago »

I am quite possed with the implementation of social control and restrictions that increasingly look like the only purpose is to keep power tight and half-slaving people.

I think we should all massively move to crypto, gold and such things, avoid KYC when possible and show these people that we will not go through their wishes no matter the oppressive laws they try to come up with.

They can put a few in jail. But when we are millions, what are they going to do?

Being hostile to these agendas is becoming a necessity.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#236

Post by IAmGraydon »

ryandrake wrote: post #215
fennecfoxy wrote: post #190

I know this is about UK (where I am a foreigner living for almost a decade). But why are pretty much all governments universally inept? It's not only the UK but US gov has also pushed for this and plenty of other stupendously stupid ideas or decisions - and plenty of other governments (well, all of them) besides. It leads me to believe that our species is incapable of leading itself, that we are incapable of choosing…

Look at how these guys are selected: Democracy: Through popularity contests Monarchy: Through birth Other various dictators: Through force/corruption How on earth does anyone expect the best, most competent people for the job to be selected by these methods?

The first one is the best one, but it only works well with an educated population. Unfortunately, many democratic countries have lost that key ingredient.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#237

Post by fao_ »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #216
fao_ wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem here is that contextually you are falling into the trap of "talking about committing a terrorist act" as being relevant to "having private communications", and in the process you are conflating the two. This means you are falling into the trap that the UK government intentionally creates to suppress privacy — within a reader's head, now the two are related. This also means you haven't had to develop any a…

> American conservatives have framed Nazi speech as a free speech issue The famous US Supreme Court case[0] that explicitly confirmed that "Nazi speech is free speech" was brought to the court by the ACLU[1], a left-leaning organization that defends things like LGBTQ rights. Your take is completely divorced from factual reality. American conservatives aren't "framing" it. They are restating what the US Supreme Court…

You completely missed the point of what I wrote and ignored the majority, just so you could claim that Nazi speech is actually a left-wing issue — which is not a claim I think many people outside of the USA would agree with.

I do not think you understand the optics of how this looks outside of your USA-centric echo-chamber audience.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#238

Post by morkalork »

kitd wrote: post #44
McDyver wrote: post #6

It makes a lot of sense. Whoever wants to continue developing "these apps" will do it privately, and sell the service to those who want to keep doing things in hiding. Well done, watchdog! So again, it just harms the general public, while making it harder to catch criminals.

It's simpler than that. OSS strong encryption tools are available than anyone can run on the command line to encrypt their messages, which can then just go as attachments via email, whatsapp, etc. No new developers required. And as you say, the general public have to suffer with weak encryption while those who really want to encrypt do so regardless.

Not to be hysterical but when will publicly talking about, or publishing tutorials on how to use such tools get you in hot water for "promoting hostile activities"?

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#239

Post by joe463369 »

MangoToupe wrote: post #79
creata wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people too lazy to click, the second post was: > I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. > Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE. I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't…

This is an convictable crime in the US. Inciting violence is emphatically not protected speech.

It didn't happen in the US though, so that's neither here nor there. America's political system is not some benchmark that the rest of the world needs to judge themselves against.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#240

Post by nightpool »

dang wrote: post #230

There are quite a few comments below complaining about the headline - happy to change it, but I'm in a meeting trying to figure out more about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46301921 for the next bit. Can someone suggest a better title? Better here means "accurate and neutral, and preferably using representative language from the article".

"Creating apps like Signal could be considered 'hostile activities' under new Counter-Terrorism and National Security Acts, UK watchdog warns"

The language changes here are slight (claims -> warns) and includes more context about the reason this watchdog is speaking out (current debates around the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, new implementation of the National Security Act), using language from the first 4 paragraphs (may be considered, could be considered, stark warning, report warns, etc).

You could also leave out the specific names of the acts—they're not super helpful to me as a non-UK news consumer, but I suspect they might be more crucial to someone who's tapped into the UK political news cycle:

"Creating apps like Signal could be considered 'hostile activities' under new laws, UK watchdog warns"

Post reply on HN