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

UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 438 posts

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#421

Post by RumourRider »

Aloisius wrote: post #414
weavejester wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech is a form of expression; freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech. To quote from the link you provided: "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." As you point out, all countries have some restrictions on speech. We can obviously agree that somewhere like North Korea has no…

Neither the World Press Freedom Index nor the Freedom of Expression Index are particularly good measures of government restrictions on individual's speech. The former includes things like how much editorial control journalists are subjected to, the right of journalists to unionize, the cost to print/distribute newspapers, whether journalists are subject to economic constraints (like being dependent on advertising mon…

These Indexes exist so that people (that may have an agenda) can point to it and say "well we aren't as bad as these other places" and can dismiss the actual issues that exist.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#422

Post by aydyn »

slavik81 wrote: post #389
aydyn wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes lmao. You think those are literary classics in the same vein as Shakespeare or something?

No, but the films made a billion dollars in box office revenues. I know of Alan Moore's V for Vandetta because of the blockbuster movie.

Ive seen one of those movies and didnt know any of them were from books.

You realize capeshit is for children and being overly inured to the silver screen is for basement dwellers, right? Right...?

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#423

Post by weavejester »

RumourRider wrote: post #420
weavejester wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? I mean, I agree with you on that, but it's a circular argument. My comparison to North Korea wasn't whataboutism; it was intended to illustrate that while there are obvious points for agreement (i.e. that the DPRK obviously has no freedom of speech), for many countries the comparison is less black and…

> So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law . I believe Freedom of Expression is weasel words to obfuscate the conversation as now you have an additional legal concept in the mix, with some nebulous definition that reads like a Terms and Conditions…

> No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law.

We do, in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Now, you've said you don't believe that the definition of freedom of expression in the HRA and ECHR lines up with your definition of free speech. That's fine. You are of course welcome to that opinion.

But you act as though your definition of free speech is authoritative, and yet you also have not defined it. When I've prompted you to narrow it down, you avoid the question.

So let me ask you extremely directly: what's your definition of "free speech"? Or to be more precise: which restrictions on speech are allowed, and which are forbidden, in order for a country to have "free speech" in your book?

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#424

Post by weavejester »

tpm wrote: post #419
weavejester wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some truth in what you say, but it's filtered through a distorted lens. Like many countries, the UK government makes the laws and the courts interpret them. The government can't ignore the courts, but can introduce new legislation. The UK population leans more conservative than many other European countries, but free speech, for the most part, has broad public support. There's a lot of discussion around where…

> In the current government, only a minority of MPs are upper class And yet their policies are broadly right-wing conservative. Point is the government itself does not have to consist of upper-class people for the class to steer and benefit from the policies. Why is that? Well... > The UK population leans more conservative than many other European countries We really don't know that because the population has been ma…

You're using the word "class" in two different contexts here. The "class" in "upper class" is not the same as the "class" in "ruling class". This may seem pedantic, but when people say that the UK is a class-based society they're explicitly talking about the former. That's not to say there isn't overlap, but they're still two distinct sets.

I'm not going to defend the actions of the UK government, but I will ask that you give time for the courts to do their work before passing final judgement. In the case of the article you linked, for example, the man was arrested but not charged, and in the case of Palestine Action as a whole, there's an ongoing court case against the government's ban, which seems likely to succeed.

Obviously these incidents shouldn't have occurred in the first place, and I fully agree that the government is abusing the law to get its way. But the actions of the home office don't necessarily reflect the country as a whole. They don't even necessarily reflect the Labour Party as a whole.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#425

Post by RumourRider »

weavejester wrote: post #423
RumourRider wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So your argument is that if we define freedom of speech according to US law, then only the US has freedom of speech? No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law . I believe Freedom of Expression is weasel words to obfuscate the conversation as now you have an additional legal concept in the mix, with some nebulous definition that reads like a Terms and Conditions…

> No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law . We do, in the Human Rights Act 1998. Now, you've said you don't believe that the definition of freedom of expression in the HRA and ECHR lines up with your definition of free speech. That's fine. You are of course welcome to that opinion. But you act as though your definition of free speech is authoritative, and yet y…

> We do, in the Human Rights Act 1998.

No we don't. I've explained why. It even says in the text of the law the caveats it carves out.

But you can believe whatever fantasy you like. I am tired of trying to convince the fish that they are indeed swimming in water. The funniest thing is that until you've had it affect something/someone you like or respect, you won't change your mind.

BTW, I used to make all of the same arguments as you do btw about the Human Rights act and the ECHR etc. I realised after actually reading them, and seeing what actually happened and how the state operates, that what I believe was all bollox and I had been deceived.

> Now, you've said you don't believe that the definition of freedom of expression in the HRA and ECHR lines up with your definition of free speech. That's fine. You are of course welcome to that opinion.

It doesn't line up with any definition of free speech because it is a separate legal concept. I've already explained why they are different.

I happen to believe that legal concept is done deliberately so people like yourself will engage in this time wasting discussions about what is and isn't free expression. That is evidenced in this very discussion.

Ask yourself. If you happen to support Palestinian Action and do so publicly how long until police visit you or you are put on a watch list? Probably not long.

> But you act as though your definition of free speech is authoritative, and yet you also have not defined it. When I've prompted you to narrow it down, you avoid the question.

If I provide you with any sort of definition someone else will say "well that definition isn't correct", all of which ultimately deflects from the issue and is another waste of time.

The issue is that speech is restricted in the UK. It is done selectively. Some viewpoints are allowed by the British state and other aren't. Some of this is done directly, some of this is done indirectly.

e.g. There was a super injunction granted sometime last year to hide information about a large number of Afghan migrants / refugees / nationals being resettled after the Taliban took back control. Therefore the public, the press (little good they are) and presumably oppositional political parties couldn't scrutinise these plans. These types of super injunctions happen all the time.

What good is it that someone it is written on a piece of paper that you are legally able to have opposing view (as long as they fit inside the Overton window), when they literally hide information that is important for you to have any sort of informed view from you?

I asked you in my previous reply to go away and think about why certain narratives are presented to you. I never mentioned Trump, yet you seemed to want to talk about him without explicitly saying his name.

Someone somewhere wants you to worry about the press freedoms in the US. This is likely to distract you from more important things like the US have just landed some strategic nuclear bombers in the UK ahead of peace talks between Ukraine/Russia.

> So let me ask you extremely directly: what's your definition of "free speech"? Or to be more precise: which restrictions on speech are allowed, and which are forbidden, in order for a country to have "free speech" in your book?

It is irrelevant, I've explained why above. Any nation state will suppress your speech when it deems it to be necessary and will invent excuses as why it has to do it. That is the reality of it. How you choose to deal with that reality is your own choosing.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#426

Post by tpm »

weavejester wrote: post #424
tpm wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the current government, only a minority of MPs are upper class And yet their policies are broadly right-wing conservative. Point is the government itself does not have to consist of upper-class people for the class to steer and benefit from the policies. Why is that? Well... > The UK population leans more conservative than many other European countries We really don't know that because the population has been ma…

You're using the word "class" in two different contexts here. The "class" in "upper class" is not the same as the "class" in "ruling class". This may seem pedantic, but when people say that the UK is a class-based society they're explicitly talking about the former. That's not to say there isn't overlap , but they're still two distinct sets. I'm not going to defend the actions of the UK government, but I will ask tha…

> I'm not going to defend the actions of the UK government, but I will ask that you give time for the courts to do their work before passing final judgement. In the case of the article you linked, for example, the man was arrested but not charged, and in the case of Palestine Action as a whole, there's an ongoing court case against the government's ban, which seems likely to succeed.

Yes but the issue is already the government acting like this. They most probably know they are in the wrong and are acting anyway, because they want to quell the dissent. The damage is already done.

> They don't even necessarily reflect the Labour Party as a whole.

Of course. I still think about the Labour as 'the good ones', compared with the Tories (or Reform) anyway. OTOH I think this does reflect the country as a whole and not only the current government. That is my feeling from living in the UK some time ago.

I will end this saying that IMO the main difference in speech/press freedom between the UK and say Slovakia is that the UK imagines itself a powerful country fully in control of its destiny, and this illusion enables executive overreach. While Slovakia is a small country thrown around by external forces so much that only the dumbest politicians waste their energy trying to limit press freedom.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#427

Post by weavejester »

RumourRider wrote: post #425
weavejester wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. My point is that in the UK we do not have freedom of speech enshrined in constitution or law . We do, in the Human Rights Act 1998. Now, you've said you don't believe that the definition of freedom of expression in the HRA and ECHR lines up with your definition of free speech. That's fine. You are of course welcome to that opinion. But you act as though your definition of free speech is authoritative, and yet y…

> We do, in the Human Rights Act 1998. No we don't. I've explained why. It even says in the text of the law the caveats it carves out. But you can believe whatever fantasy you like. I am tired of trying to convince the fish that they are indeed swimming in water. The funniest thing is that until you've had it affect something/someone you like or respect, you won't change your mind. BTW, I used to make all of the same…

So allow me to summarize.

You believe that the HRA does not grant "free speech" due to some, or all, of the exceptions.

You refuse to define which specific exceptions you have a problem with, or define what you mean by "free speech", because if you did, people could argue against you.

That's all fine, but I wish you'd led with that. Next time write something like:

"I have my own definition of 'free speech' which I will not share, and according to this definition the UK has no freedom of speech."

To which the only response can be: "OK."

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#428

Post by RumourRider »

weavejester wrote: post #427
RumourRider wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We do, in the Human Rights Act 1998. No we don't. I've explained why. It even says in the text of the law the caveats it carves out. But you can believe whatever fantasy you like. I am tired of trying to convince the fish that they are indeed swimming in water. The funniest thing is that until you've had it affect something/someone you like or respect, you won't change your mind. BTW, I used to make all of the same…

So allow me to summarize. You believe that the HRA does not grant "free speech" due to some, or all, of the exceptions. You refuse to define which specific exceptions you have a problem with, or define what you mean by "free speech", because if you did, people could argue against you. That's all fine, but I wish you'd led with that. Next time write something like: "I have my own definition of 'free speech' which I wi…

[dead]

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#429

Post by samus »

deepsun wrote: post #292
mzajc wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This must be some "technically correct" weasel words bullcrap Is that even necessary? A gag order means they can't reveal backdoors, and their entire stack is so locked down that discovering them is hard and unlikely.

Gag order cannot force them to lie. A lie like that can be illegal even. If there's a gag order, then companies say "we have a gag order". Like Google and Twitter did back in the day when asked. And then immediately started releasing Transparency Report to show how many of the gag orders they receive, so gov't couldn't say "we don't request anything". https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview

This is absolutely a thing. For comparison, banking regulation basically makes banks extensions of the intelligence services and forces them to tell off law enforcement in case "suspicious" account activities are detected. Usually banks will also close the account, but the regulations ensure the customer will never find out why because the bank will stonewall them to ensure they don't accidentally tattle.

https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...

Even if no formal regulation to that effect exists for social media companies, intelligence agencies presumably have sufficient leverage to ensure similar access.

Re: UK backing down on Apple encryption backdoor after pressure from US

#430

Post by deepsun »

EasyMark wrote: post #408
bigyabai wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You chose to use fascist technology. If you're scared by the potential for your state to exercise the same power your OEM has, then stop buying from that OEM. Regulate shitty security models, demand transparency for opaque systems. Switch to honest and open alternatives that trust you with freedom and power. Or, reap your fascist just deserts. Why the hell should I waste my time calling Apple a fascist if I haven't d…

So rollover and accept it and try to silo my life to please fascists and not complain and vote against it (where possible)? No thank you.

Sometimes just voting is not enough.

For example, Nazi Party didn't come to power democratically. Hitler lost 1932 elections to Hindenburg, and didn't get any position. But in two months, Hindenburg appointed him to Chancellor position, opening way to big money. And there was no democracy after that: in about a month they organize the Reichstag fire and issue a lot of consecutive "emergency" decrees, kill political opponents etc.

Post reply on HN