Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by bilekas » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 9:39 PM UTC

pona-a wrote: post #252

bilekas wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know very well and I absolutely am not advocating for removing TLS. I am only saying that there is no need for them to remove it as IsP's can already access your traffic if needed through a lawful intercept. These are part of ISP certification. You're very naive if you believe there is no way for the ISP to view your traffic just because you're over an Https connection. The ISP has "Intercept Access Points" withing…

> You're very naive if you believe there is no way for the ISP to view your traffic just because you're over an https connection. You seem to be under an impression an ISP's "Intercept Access Point" is somehow different from any downstream MitM. An ISP is certainly has more area than a coffee shop network, but the threat model stays mostly the same. Both I and Comcast can run tcpdump or mess with your packets to the…

Would you mind if we took this out hn? I'd love to go through this a bit more. I feel we may have reached the limit of scope for the conversation topic to be fair. I'll put my mail in my profile.

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

#262

Post by dns_snek » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 9:44 PM UTC

36890752189743 wrote: post #259

pksebben wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cuts to one of the critical issues with governance globally in this era. For a really long time, we relied on social norms and mores to keep governments in check - and astonishingly it worked at least a little. Embarrassment was a good proxy for well constituted rules of representation. What right-wing institutions have noticed all around the world is that you can just kind of ignore all that shit now. Centrists…

Right-wing institutions like the Labour regime.

Labour is a left-wing institution as much as Democratic People's republic of (North) Korea is democratic.

People lie and they use doublespeak.

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

#263

Post by pksebben » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 9:46 PM UTC

coderenegade wrote: post #258

pksebben wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cuts to one of the critical issues with governance globally in this era. For a really long time, we relied on social norms and mores to keep governments in check - and astonishingly it worked at least a little. Embarrassment was a good proxy for well constituted rules of representation. What right-wing institutions have noticed all around the world is that you can just kind of ignore all that shit now. Centrists…

It boggles my mind that you think this stuff is being pushed by the right. Expansion of government and surveillance is a hallmark of the left , and indeed this latest wave of surveillance is being pushed by progressive governments in Western Europe and Australia. Governments of both flavours are ignoring the voting public, for various reasons, e.g. they are signatory to agreements that no longer work for the public b…

The constitution is being summarily ignored by the current administration. There is a right to trial in there that we've just totally blown past, and the deep integration between party insiders and media consolidation is a sideways assault on the first amendment.

The idea that "they're coming for your guns" is something we can begin to discuss when the first step to curb our mass shooting problem is actually taken. For now, it's a little ridiculous to infer that there's any kind of 'siege' on the second amendment given that we have them all the damn time and they're not slowing down.

I would ask folks in the EU whether they think they're leaning left at the moment. Reading their news it doesn't seem to be the case [0 1 2 3].

Just out of curiosity - in what concrete way do you think the second amendment serves as an equalizer? Do you imagine that the government sees an armed populace as any kind of a threat?

Leaving the left-right debate behind for just a second - I smell that there is something perhaps we may agree on. Representation is fundamentally broken. Even given our ideological differences, how do you feel about direct democracy? I think we'd benefit.

0 - https://www.ibanet.org/The-year-of-elections-The-rise-of-Eur...

1 - https://ecfr.eu/publication/rise-to-the-challengers-europes-...

2 - https://fortune.com/europe/2025/02/25/europe-far-right-movem...

3 - https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/12/24/european-polit...

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

#264

Post by coderenegade » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

hnlmorg wrote: post #255

chii wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see why governments think they are doing this to protect the people. they're not doing this to protect people, they're doing this to ensure there cannot be rebellion against unpopular policies. Organization is harder if all communications is monitored. But this is how gov't get to be kept in check - the risk of "rebellion". If this risk is removed, you get authoritarian states - see north korea.

I think the saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is more apt. I think what’s happening isn’t some evil plot to quell opposing voices, but more likely the UK government thinking they’re actually passing laws to reduce rioting and online abuse. And the censorship effects are a side effect of these laws. Some might consider this opinion naive but take this counterpoint: laws require a majority to pass…

This. Governments are signatory to a huge number of agreements, and are members of various NGOs. Things start out as being representative of some will of the people, but over time it becomes a millstone around the government's neck if it the arrangement becomes politically difficult at home. And of course, those arrangements often morph to be to the benefit of those in charge.

What happens is that you get arrangements like the EU demanding migration quotas that the populations of various individual countries despise, or an automobile market that gets progressively more expensive as environmental legislation puts ever more pressure on manufacturers. And of course, if you're saving the world, who needs cars anyway? We should all be living Hong Kong style to save the environment, so we need more urban density.

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

#265

Post by dns_snek » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

tt24 wrote: post #260

pksebben wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cuts to one of the critical issues with governance globally in this era. For a really long time, we relied on social norms and mores to keep governments in check - and astonishingly it worked at least a little. Embarrassment was a good proxy for well constituted rules of representation. What right-wing institutions have noticed all around the world is that you can just kind of ignore all that shit now. Centrists…

Pretty incredible ability to make something so clearly about government overreach into some pet cause about “corporations” or whatever

Are you under the impression that corporations and governments of capitalist countries are somehow independent? The ultimate goal of both of them is to have the greatest amount of power over the greatest number of people. They're an extension of one another more than they are independent entities.

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

#266

Post by yeahforsureman » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 10:16 PM UTC

josteink wrote: post #136

dathinab wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, and here is a fun fact, most of the push for mass surveillance comes from the European Council, the thing is that literally are "just" the locally elected leaders... not some vague far away "the EU (personalized)" thing which also mean you can locally enact pressure on them furthermore the EU supreme court(s) might have more often hindered mass surveillance laws in member states then the council pushing for them…

> mass surveillance comes from the European Council, the thing is that literally are "just" the locally elected leaders... Factually incorrect. The European Parliament is elected. The Council is appointed, so there is no direct democratic incentive for the council to act on and no direct electorate to please. On top of that the actually elected European Parliament can only approve (or turn down) directives authored b…

This is so off in many ways.

In short, there are three core institutions, the "technocratic" European Commission, the European Parliament elected by direct popular vote, and the Council ("of the EU"/"of ministers") made up of the relevant (in terms of subject matter) ministers of the standing national govs. The law-making procedures depend on policy areas etc. but usually in the policy areas where EU is fully competent, the Commission — the democratically least accountable of the three bodies — by default makes the initiatives and negotiates/mediates them further along with the Parliament and Council, but only the last two together really have the power to finally approve actual legislation, usually either Regulations (directly applicable in member states as such — so an increasingly preferred instrument of near-full harmonisation), or Directives (requiring separate national transposition / implementation and usually leaving more room for national-level discretion otherwise as well).

While not fully comparable to nation-state parliaments, the powers of the EU Parliament have been strengthened vis-à-vis both the Commission and the Council, and it's certainly long been a misrepresentation to say that they, e.g., only have the power to "approve or turn down" proposals of the Commission and/or the Council.

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

#267

Post by tt24 » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 10:29 PM UTC

dns_snek wrote: post #265

tt24 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty incredible ability to make something so clearly about government overreach into some pet cause about “corporations” or whatever

Are you under the impression that corporations and governments of capitalist countries are somehow independent? The ultimate goal of both of them is to have the greatest amount of power over the greatest number of people. They're an extension of one another more than they are independent entities.

They’re very obviously independent and are not an extension of one another. This is leftist single lens / unidimensional silliness.

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

#268

Post by hactually » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 11:25 PM UTC

gitremote wrote: post #86

miroljub wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you got heavily downvoted. Yes, there are governments that are worse than European, but the decline of European government is the fastest. You may be surprised that the UK is the world leader in the number of people arrested because of internet posts. And that Germany, which is still way behind the UK, has more people arrested for the same reason than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Belarus,…

The decline of the US government is the faster than "Europe", because it's been declining rapidly in a few months. The US government currently has a monthly quota for ICE arrests. ICE agents racially profile people and ignore non-white people telling them they are US citizens because they assume they are lying. Non-white US citizens need to have papers on them that prove their status (US citizen), or else might be di…

As someone not in the US. Isnt ICE just enforcing the immigration law of the country?

Is that a bad thing? I've got friends in the UK crying out for something like ICE so keen to understand why it's viewed as rapid decline.

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

#269

Post by cluckindan » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 11:41 PM UTC

antonvs wrote: post #88

cluckindan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November…

You should mention the year. That incident was four hundred and twenty years ago. There was no Great Britain, no United Kingdom. Scotland was an independent country. The UK today is not the same place, not in the slightest.

Wdym, the movie came out in 2005

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

#270

Post by ben_w » Fri, Dec 19, 2025, 12:41 AM UTC

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…

> If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites,

And what do you do when the criminals can successfully prevent focus? Whether by encryption or by locked doors keeping cops out or by letting it be known that grasses get concrete shoes?

You and I and everyone on this site knows why encryption is important. We all know that the internet fundamentally can't work without it; not only but also online banking and online shopping. We here know it keeps all of society safe from hackers and blackmailers. It's common knowledge amongst us that it keeps critical infrastructure secure.

I think there's a genuine disconnect in the halls of government from all that: They're used to a world with humans that are flawed and who make mistakes, but those mistakes are at a personal scale. To err is human, to really foul up, as the saying goes, requires a computer, and I don't think popular culture has internalised what that means, despite the existence of all the websites with near-instant content lookup — look at how hacking is seen in pop culture, how it's akin to lock picking rather than programming: the perception is of one person's skill against a puzzle box, the reality is automation where once the puzzle is solved, the lock picked, every safe in the world opens in the blink of an eye.

Laws and press opinions about the need for government backdoors treat it like allowing police to break into houses: "got a warrant, then it's fine"; they don't realise it's more like "fake uniforms, ID badges, and warrants are available on most streets".

That doesn't make the problem category this is supposed to solve go away. There's a few reasons why I'd like to maximally liberalise the laws, one of them is so that criminal prosecution can be more tightly focussed on what matters. Other reasons include "people should be aware of all the laws that affect them, and it's not OK when the system is so complicated you have to be a lawyer to even get that far".