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

91–100 of 164 posts

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

#91

Post by scarface_74 »

stephen_g wrote: post #66
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.

As far as the Patriot Act, when Max Cleland came out against it, the Republicans claimed he “didn’t love his country”.

Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam. None of his opponents had ever served.

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

#92

Post by bell-cot »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #88
bell-cot wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes.

Context: The President it was addressed to had been working to prepare for war against Germany for most of a year. Einstein's "famous, politically ~neutral super-genius" reputation was far loftier than that of any signatory to this Open Letter. And it warned the U.S. President about a super-powerful type of bomb which Germany might develop (and use against the U.S.A.) during a period when both bomber and bombing technologies were obviously advancing very rapidly.

If a "smartest in the world" mathematician wrote the current U.S. President, to warn that the crypto algorithms currently used by the U.S. for uber-secret stuff might quite possibly be fully broken by China in the next few years - then I suspect that the current U.S. President might be fairly willing to take action. That is not the scenario around this Open Letter.

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

#94

Post by scarface_74 »

isaacremuant wrote: post #78
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.

Most of the populations around the world were in favor of locking people down because the governments, media and tech companies told them to. They were ok with debate being censored because "It was too important and risky". Same thing happened in many countries with terrorism and loss of rights/super authoritarian/inconstitucional powers for govs, and it was fine... Because the risk is too great and "are you a Let's…

The idea of isolating people who have communicative diseases and limiting crowds goes back centuries

https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/expressions/past-virus-...

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

#95

Post by tremon »

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.

What's the purpose of this exercise? What's the value of equating one emotionally-charged label with a different emotionally-charged label?

As to your question: yes, most authoritarians are conservative in nature, given that the world has mostly been moving away from authoritarianism over the past few decades.

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

#96

Post by scarface_74 »

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…

Yes because Musk cares about “freedom of speech” as long as it is something he agrees with .

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

#98

Post by fauigerzigerk »

rmilejczz wrote: post #83
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the common theme that unites supporters of the surveillance state is control, which is not the same thing as preserving the status quo. You also need control in order to make effective changes to the status quo.

All political movements and all politicians are convinced that their power is 100% legitimate and they should therefore be able to have 100% control of and visibility into everything that's going on.

The idea is compatible with most peoples' definition of democracy. You don't need to support other aspects of authoritarianism usually associated with right or left wing dictatorships.

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

#99

Post by raxxorraxor »

martinralbrecht wrote: post #2

"As independent information security and cryptography researchers, we build technologies that keep people safe online. It is in this capacity that we see the need to stress that the safety provided by these essential technologies is now under threat in the Online Safety Bill."

Europe has similar bills with chat control. There was no serious expert that did not warn about the severe negative repercussions. Representatives still didn't seem to be interested and the EU isn't particular democratic so anyone could be held to account.

I think technology must provide ways to ensure free and secure communication without a possibility of surveillance. The political class cannot be entrusted to shield essential freedoms, so technology has to provide it. Large tech companies are a single point of failure and we already have seen political influence there. While much of it is now challenged at least, I think we can all be glad the the internet provided some resilience against surveillance and propaganda attempts.

In that regard the panic about disinformation is also mostly manufactured in my opinion and the voice of experts will be disregarded anyway.

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

#100

Post by bell-cot »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #81
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.

Might you know of any Press Releases they've issued in conjunction with this open letter, or similar media-friendly materials?

At least where I live, the middle-aged owner of a small-town ice cream parlor is 99% likely to know how to do an effective press release. The "news" can be a new ice cream flavor, with the colors of the local HS sports teams...but you carefully write that press release in such a way that any over-worked bottom-rung reporter can spend 30 seconds adjusting the pronouns & such, then publish it in their paper.

Post reply on HN