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

Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

techradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 299 posts

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#91

Post by tejohnso »

Bender wrote: post #64
flowerthoughts wrote: post #17

> He warns that developers of apps like Signal and WhatsApp could technically fall within the legal definition of "hostile activity" simply because their technology "make[s] it more difficult for UK security and intelligence agencies to monitor communications. Sounds like Let's Encrypt would also fall under that. This has got to stop. If you want to stop criminals, then focus on their illegal activites, not the stree…

Governments always focus on the tools and not the people. Troubleshooting and resolving the root cause requires work. They do not get paid to work or care meaning they could sit on their hands and still get paid.

> they could sit on their hands and still get paid

Could? I know of government employees who literally cannot do their job, yet somehow they've been employed for over twenty years. When I say they can't do their job, I mean they have to ask coworkers how to do something that is and always has been a job requirement, and they have to "ask for help" every time. People are actually enabling massive amounts of waste and inefficiency.

Then there are those who don't even have work to do, and will take offense if you ask them to justify their continued employment. As though they are owed a position in the organization tomorrow just because they have a position in the company today.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#93

Post by lordfarquad »

The authorities here (UK resident) are already pushing hard for as much authoritarianism as they can get. They are also increasing prison capacity and the two tier system is a genuine thing with public services collapsing.

Police militarization, drones, army unit investigating private civilians, digital powers widening... I am more scared of the government than I am of local paramilitary forces at this point.

It may be enough to swing my vote towards Irish unity given the topic will be forced within my life time.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#95

Post by dlahoda »

anybody can buy esim on street(ask llm how to do so) for cash or crypto. anybody can randomly talk on random webrtc domain or use random delta chat email to text.

if somebody really has high income(and high risk) illegal scheme he will not use signal for very bad things.

more, llm can tell exactly do things outlined above.

so chat control is for small(small income) crime and control of ordinary citizens behave well. in this sence it will serve its purpose.

so what is purpose going for signal developers? why not they try to do same with webrtc standard and browsers and llms?

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#97

Post by bennyp101 »

creata wrote: post #77
_bohm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I believe people should be jailed for speech, but merely referring to what he said as “anti-immigration” is very much burying the lede

For people too lazy to click, the second post was: > I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. > Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE. I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't…

"then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament" - that's the bit that probably set it in motion

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#98

Post by brigandish »

creata wrote: post #77
_bohm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I believe people should be jailed for speech, but merely referring to what he said as “anti-immigration” is very much burying the lede

For people too lazy to click, the second post was: > I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. > Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE. I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't…

The US has a three part test[1] for what constitutes incitement:

- intent

- imminence

- likelihood

If the UK had speech protections like the US (which I wish they would) then it would fail the imminence and probably the likelihood tests (you rightly note that it is ineffective).

[1] https://uslawexplained.com/incitement

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#99

Post by CommanderData »

lordfarquad wrote: post #93

The authorities here (UK resident) are already pushing hard for as much authoritarianism as they can get. They are also increasing prison capacity and the two tier system is a genuine thing with public services collapsing. Police militarization, drones, army unit investigating private civilians, digital powers widening... I am more scared of the government than I am of local paramilitary forces at this point. It may…

Removal of Jury service for certain crimes says it all, seeing this happen in the wake of Palestine Action is considerably disturbing, if I were a conspiracy nut I'd argue these things are being done to please Israel.

Re: Independent review of UK national security law warns of overreach

#100

Post by antonvs »

logicchains wrote: post #51
N_Lens wrote: post #9

I wonder how the public in the UK feels about their country quickly devolving into an oversurveilled state.

One of the original motivations for the First Amendment was the UK's surveillance and censorship of American mail; the UK has been a surveillance state for a very long time.

I was amused by the UK TV show Spooks (aka MI5), from the early 2000s - it showed an organization with a ridiculous amount of surveillance and other powers, acting in blatantly partisan ways, but it tried very hard to make that all seem like a good thing.

The underlying argument was essentially the same one used in the US: almost anything is justified if it helps prevent anything they subjectively determine as “terrorism”.

Post reply on HN