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

Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

haddadi.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 164 posts

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#61

Post by rainonmoon »

tenpies wrote: post #25
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #3

I think it's inevitable that at some point some legislation like the OSB will pass in most western countries. It's going to drive the people who have the know how underground, and anyone engaging in protecting their privacy will be considered a criminal. We're already creeping toward that IMO.

My hope is that some comparatively insignificant Western country passes it first, makes international news when it cripples its own technological capacity and infrastructure, and then that becomes the cautionary tale. My money is on Canada. The Trudeau Liberals passed their first of three internet control and censorship bills, C-18, and it has already backfired stupendously. It's quite similiar to Australia's similia…

Don't worry, Australia is doubling down too. Our entire legislative board around tech and the internet at the moment is chock full of draconian shit like this.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#62

Post by BLKNSLVR »

tenpies wrote: post #25
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #3

I think it's inevitable that at some point some legislation like the OSB will pass in most western countries. It's going to drive the people who have the know how underground, and anyone engaging in protecting their privacy will be considered a criminal. We're already creeping toward that IMO.

My hope is that some comparatively insignificant Western country passes it first, makes international news when it cripples its own technological capacity and infrastructure, and then that becomes the cautionary tale. My money is on Canada. The Trudeau Liberals passed their first of three internet control and censorship bills, C-18, and it has already backfired stupendously. It's quite similiar to Australia's similia…

Australia is half-fucked already, and will be completely fucked when the current opposition get back into Government (they're the ones who initiated the half-fucked status when they were in government, unfortunately with no resistance from the opposition at the time).

Raid warrants are already being signed off based on the tiny window into an IP address' life provided by legislated metadata retention. And no further actual police work is done on backgrounding the persons or households involved before choosing to suspend their rights.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#63

Post by pessimizer »

noduerme wrote: post #42
psychphysic wrote: post #22

Bigger question how will safe messaging apps exit the market? Will people need a number for a privacy friendly foreign nation to continue access?

This is what the micro-nations were on about, people trying to dredge sand up off reefs and take over drilling platforms since the early 1980s to establish "data havens". The long term trend is that no nation will ultimately resist backdoors on encrypted platforms, because militarily they cannot resist the pressure (internally or externally). The micronation thing is silly, as is relying on a shrinking number of coun…

> If I were Musk and had that chain up in the sky,

If you were Musk, and if Musk were some sort of superhero fighter for communications freedom. If Musk wants private communication for himself and his friends, I'm sure he can manage it.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#64

Post by stephen_g »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #52
pjc50 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK public are extremely conservative, and extremely misinformed by conservative news sources. That's at the root of a lot of the demand for authoritarianism.

Conservative? Has Labour opposed any of it?

Labour are not “The Conservative Party” but they are definitely (at the moment) pretty solidly a conservative party.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#65

Post by mandmandam »

version_five wrote: post #41
mandmandam wrote: post #12

These researchers are using logic and reason to fight against a bill that seeks to amass power and control. And while I appreciate the level tone... I do wish they'd at least wink at the real reasons this is being put forward. I get why they don't, to maintain respectability and deniability etc. But look at the sheer hypocrisy on display here. I kinda wish they'd take the gloves off and say, hey - Look at Prince Andr…

I think it's inflammatory and unfair to put Prince Andrew in your list, with a sex trafficker and two serial child abusers. He may have had an inappropriate relationship with a girl at a party, hold him to account for whatever there is in that it, but it's nowhere near on the scale as the others and it's the kind of hyperbole that dismisses the magnitude of major crimes.

> hold him to account

Exactly.

He wasn't held to account for "an inappropriate relationship" (which is a fucked up way to describe multiple statutory rape allegations).

Instead, he was protected; given interviews where he practically hanged himself with ridiculous claims ("I don't sweat", "no recollection" of photographic evidence, etc); and still hasn't been investigated, even after refusing to cooperate with investigations.

And, you're dramatically underplaying his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell, which goes back to 1999 and includes weddings, Royal parties, topless Thai festivities, international visits, etc; even after Epstein's conviction: [0], [1]

It's not hyperbole to put him in this list; not at all. His inclusion illustrates the extent of power getting away with crimes in Britain. He was never arrested - but the protester who heckled him was. That says a lot.

0 - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49411215 details the absolute bare minimum extent of it.

1 - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/07/prince-andre...

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#66

Post by stephen_g »

a_c wrote: post #44

As I understand it, most UK public are in favour of this bill almost Pavlovianly. There is a clear disconnect between us, the tech know-how, and the general public.

The public have been sold a lie. Just like the “Patriot Act” was just to keep everybody free and protect people from terrorists. It happens everywhere, and has been happening for a long time - it’s more about the narrative made up by the people pushing a law than what the law actually does. It would take a particularly free, particularly good media to inform the public that just doesn’t exist in most of the world.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#67

Post by bell-cot »

anonymousDan wrote: post #60
bell-cot wrote: post #58

Sigh... Beyond the security researchers' own little "computer savvy 1%" bubble, is there any intended audience for such Open Letters? Could they actually communicate with normal people if they (somehow) wanted to? Are there laws in the UK that make it too risky to just say something like "This bill will make it so much easier for the next Wayne Couzens to find his perfect Sarah Everard."?

This is directed primarily to politicians about to vote on the bill.

In theory.

Could you tell us about the historical effectiveness of such open letters to UK politicians, from tiny numbers of technical experts, on issues politically similar to this?

Assume that we've heard of Performative Activism.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#68

Post by rmilejczz »

pessimizer wrote: post #55
pjc50 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK public are extremely conservative, and extremely misinformed by conservative news sources. That's at the root of a lot of the demand for authoritarianism.

Starmer et al. aren't any less authoritarian than the Tories.

I don’t think they were talking about tories specifically just Britain as a whole being very conservative. Indeed as you’ve pointed out even the Labour Party in the UK is quite conservative. I would say the same is true of America, that much of the Democratic Party is actually quite conservative.

Re: Open Letter from Security Researchers in Relation to the Online Safety Bill [pdf]

#70

Post by fauigerzigerk »

stephen_g wrote: post #64
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservative? Has Labour opposed any of it?

Labour are not “The Conservative Party” but they are definitely (at the moment) pretty solidly a conservative party.

The surveillance state isn't an exclusively conservative idea though. It has a long and storied tradition on the Left as well.
Post reply on HN