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

81–90 of 164 posts

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

#81

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

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."?

> Could they actually communicate with normal people if they (somehow) wanted to?

That have that comm channel. It's the press and the press instantly loses it's way, the moment Gov puts on a NatSec or Child Safety mask.

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

#82

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

pjc50 wrote: post #46
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 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.

> The UK public are extremely conservative, and extremely misinformed by conservative news sources.

While conservative news sources historically act in bad faith here, non-conservative news sources lose all reasoning ability, when it comes to Gov surveillance. They rarely hold Gov accountable unless they have little choice.

The latter probably happens because the public endlessly gives news orgs a pass about it.

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

#83

Post by rmilejczz »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #73
rmilejczz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So would you call left-wing authoritarianism conservative then? I don't think political historians would agree with this designation.

It sort of depends I guess. I’m not a political historian but it depends on what that “authoritarianism” looks like. In general though, wouldnt authoritarianism exist to maintain a strict status quote? In that sense yes I would call it conservative.

But like I said, I’m not a political historian just an idiot with a half baked opinion.

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

#84

Post by goolz »

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.

[flagged]

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

#85

Post by Snarwin »

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."?

Most likely the intended audience is the press. Now that this letter has been published, journalists can write stories like "Online Safety Bill Under Fire From Security Experts", which make the issue digestible to a lay audience.

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

#86

Post by pjc50 »

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.

Yeah. "Small-c conservative". Starmer seems to have decided that the path to victory is to copy Tory policy and attitude as closely as possible, hoping that this will get him favourable press coverage or support from the particular set of "floating" voters in marginal constituencies that he needs.

But the Labour party have never been especially liberal. They're just as likely to enact controlling social policy. And, again, the press are extremely illiberal, they're likely to campaign for more surveillance.

(Don't try to jam the American two-party lens onto UK four-plus party politics, it will not help you make sense of the actual situation).

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

#87

Post by UncleMeat »

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 an answerable question!

There aren't a lot of people who are at the intersection of technology and advocacy, but they do exist and would be able to help us know what effective advocacy looks like. We just need a little guidance as a community.

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

#88

Post by AndrewKemendo »

bell-cot wrote: post #67
anonymousDan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While not the UK you might have heard of this letter from a tiny number of technical experts on a politically sensitive technical topic:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_let...

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

#89

Post by aembleton »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #53
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.

Unfortunately, I think the only way for that situation to change is for enough members of the general public to be caught up in some kind of accidental suspicion or publication of their personal data. And I think those who are proposing these kinds of bills know this, and are protected by how unlikely it would be to reach any kind of critical mass organically. I'm sure there are laws against the encouragement of othe…

Or for WhatsApp to stop working.

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

#90

Post by mola »

Loquebantur wrote: post #75
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."?

They bury the central tenet in the middle, staying true to being inept at public communication: > There is no technological solution to the contradiction inherent in both keeping information confidential from third parties and sharing that same information with third parties. It would be more effective to tweet that sentence wherever the discussion is remotely touched. Nobody, including politicians, reads such length…

Then we're doomed anyway...
Post reply on HN