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

UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 130 posts

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#61

Post by bazmattaz »

b112 wrote: post #37
HeckFeck wrote: post #24

Going to buy shares in VPN providers. Seriously though, this just feels like the walls closing in on the freedom we had online. There’s no way these powers won’t be extended into more surveillance and censorship generally, now that they’re in the door. We all lose. And it won’t make the lives better for miserable children whom this bill is supposed to help - if anything, by controlling online content more they have e…

Just make sure you sell, before the same governments legislate back doors in those same vpns. Or, your OS.

Absolutely. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the major VPN providers already has back doors for the NSA and GCHQ. Looking at you NordVPN

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#62

Post by mattnewton »

Affric wrote: post #60

It’s interesting. This gigantic legislation is misconceived at the same time I think it’s easy to see why it has been deemed electorally popular enough for the government to proceed with. Tech companies do not provide a carriage service. It’s something more than that. The behaviours they permitted, and even encouraged, on their platforms have incurred large amounts of harm on individuals and society as a whole. There…

> With that said I think the existence of the unregulated internet was likely anomalous. If ever you wanted privacy, you always have had to ensure the only two beings with access to the information communicated were yourself and the intended recipient. Is it really possible for a society to permit the existence of any large organisation for private communication without eavesdropping?

It wasn’t feasible to open up every letter and scan it before resealing it outside of prisons then or now, but it is for electronic communication, and it will be done in the name of safety. The same is true of monitoring every conversation you have with friends; impossible before outside prisons, easy now electronically. This is what is entirely anomalous.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#63

Post by logicchains »

Affric wrote: post #60

It’s interesting. This gigantic legislation is misconceived at the same time I think it’s easy to see why it has been deemed electorally popular enough for the government to proceed with. Tech companies do not provide a carriage service. It’s something more than that. The behaviours they permitted, and even encouraged, on their platforms have incurred large amounts of harm on individuals and society as a whole. There…

>With that said I think the existence of the unregulated internet was likely anomalous. If ever you wanted privacy, you always have had to ensure the only two beings with access to the information communicated were yourself and the intended recipient. Is it really possible for a society to permit the existence of any large organisation for private communication without eavesdropping

Encrypted communication is always going to exist, even the Chinese government can't prevent two technically capable people (or people with technically capable friends) from communication securely, and it has the most powerful internet filtering system in existence. If you ban encryption, then only the criminals will have encryption, and that's much truer for encryption than guns because anyone with a bit of knowledge and a few kilobytes of source code can setup encrypted communication that's mathematically unbreakable.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#64

Post by jjgreen »

switch007 wrote: post #27
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the UK government in collapse? The same reasons as the US?

Our country is crumbling and people are starting to realise it’s the Tory’s fault. 13 years of Tory rule, cutting services to the bone and making themselves rich at our expense is seriously taking its toll. Councils are going bankrupt, schools are falling apart, public transport is in managed decline in a lot of areas, various sectors regularly going on strike, people can’t afford their bills, mortgages sky-rocketed,…

Labour has largely supported this -- one of the originators is Lorna Woods (University of Essex) who was an advisor to Blair.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#65

Post by TeaDude »

mattlondon wrote: post #9

I wonder if this sort of thing would lead to more people self-hosting again since it seems to be targeted at "big tech". So because Facebook, tiktok, YouTube et al start over-censoring, people just think fuck it and start hosting their own content again?

Facebook, Twitter et al have entire office floors to deal with legal threats.

The UK police love to go after "soft" targets and there's no-one softer than someone who's life can immediately be ruined by arresting them and thus getting them fired due to missing work.

Edit: I now see you mean "host their own personal content" but the point still stands.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#67

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

kulahan wrote: post #43

The bill makes sites prove they are committed to removing content: * promoting or facilitating suicide * promoting self-harm Serious question - how will this affect discussions around euthanasia? Can people just not discuss that online in the UK anymore?

Yes but not in the way you think. You will be prohibited from opposing it. It will be "self-harm" to live and it isn't suicide when the government kills you to save the NHS money.

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#69

Post by zarzavat »

kulahan wrote: post #43

The bill makes sites prove they are committed to removing content: * promoting or facilitating suicide * promoting self-harm Serious question - how will this affect discussions around euthanasia? Can people just not discuss that online in the UK anymore?

“self-harm” is a broad category as well. A lot of things that people do are harmful to the self in some way.

For harm to others we have the bright(er) line of consent, but for harm to oneself, who is to say?

Re: UK Parliament passes Online Safety Bill

#70

Post by darreninthenet »

cwales95 wrote: post #49
Jigsy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said it wasn't currently feasible. Meaning they believe it will be (lol) years or decades down the line.

Pretty much. I’m not sure if it got included but if it was feasibly possible they absolutely would — which is just as bad in my opinion. Lack of capability does not nullify intent.

It was included, I think the wording was changed to include something like "when technically feasible" or similar
Post reply on HN