The Online Safety Bill: An attack on encryption(element.io)
element.io
The Online Safety Bill: An attack on encryption
https://element.io/blog/the-online-safety-bill-an-attack-on-encryption/
193 comments
This is the end game that multiple British governments have been aiming at for decades. "Let's ban encryption" has been on the table at least as far back as Cameron, I think maybe also Blair. It kept getting knocked back (because obviously a blanket ban on encryption is ridiculous) but then it comes back in a slightly different form. It's been proposed at least 3 times that I can think of in the last 20 years. There's a documentary from the 90s called taking liberties which is part of what got me interested in privacy, if you watch it you'll see how long that's been building.
Unfortunately the bill is quite far advanced, hence us sending up distress flares like this: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137#timeline
Side note. Didn't expect the UK bill document to be quite plain. I thought at least there should be UK coat of arms on every page, or at the very least stylish first letter instead only bigger font and bolded.
This bill has cross-party support. It's not a conspiracy by the Tories—Labour, the LibDems, and the SNP want it too.
Per the leadership or by members?
Bills like this keep coming back.
Can we instead look to pass the opposite? A bill that marks the right to use private encryption as a fundamental right?
Is that kind of thing possible?
Where or how would I support such an activity?
Can we instead look to pass the opposite? A bill that marks the right to use private encryption as a fundamental right?
Is that kind of thing possible?
Where or how would I support such an activity?
the fact that such a proposal can even fly shows how broken every country is. none of them care the slightest about the freedom they so boast. banning encryption makes absolutely no sense, it's like banning whispering. or banning having a conversation and not going and writing it down after in case a police needs to audit it. the literal only reason it makes sense is when you watch a hollywood movie and you think encryption actually means something else like firing missiles. the problem is there are about 100x too many unneeded people in justice, and on top of that its half controlled by corpos who think you should go to jail for 100 years for bypassing [1] their copyright protection to decrease their losses by 0.0000000000001%, all while being a CURRENT_YEAR dogshit company like LG or Samsung or EA or Epic that produces absolutely nothing of value but has large capital
1. again, one of their key reasoning points is always that they saw a hollywood movie and they think copy protection circumvention means something else like being a ninja running into a building and quickly killing 3 people with a katana
1. again, one of their key reasoning points is always that they saw a hollywood movie and they think copy protection circumvention means something else like being a ninja running into a building and quickly killing 3 people with a katana
It's far too easy to sell the common person on "bad people bad". Explaining to the common person why they should care about encryption and how bad people can and will exploit any hole in that encryption is far more nuanced.
Common person doesn't need to be sold, just told to follow the rule and as long as the food drink gasoline keeps coming they'll follow the orders.
I treat it as an arm. I wield it for defensive purposes the same way I concealed carry for defensive purposes. And in the US, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. At least in theory.
"Once they get complacent, we bust out the 2nd Amendment." https://xkcd.com/504/
There really is an XKCD for everything. I love it.
Given the murder rate, mass shooting rate, incarceration per capita and domestic violence involving firearms in the US ... I'm not sure drawing that parallel is as convincing an argument for safeguarding encryption as you think.
It is a perfect example. Guns are sometimes used for bad things just like encryption. Encryption, just like guns, are a right regardless.
My point is, guns are not a good example of "bad things happen rarely when people have things capable or badness"
That wasn't the point anyways. Bad things happen a lot regardless of if the tools are available. The point is that you should be able to stop it with equal capability, not be intentionally handicapped.
For the avoidance of doubt, my point isn't that the parallel drawn is poor ... just that if we're selling the idea of "good outweighs the potential bad" then guns are not a good example for selling that angle.
Europeans and the redistribution of consequences, they go together like bread and butter.
Encryption is far more dangerous than a gun, it's more like a nuke. You can't individually bypass the entire US or UK government with a gun but you can reasonably expect to do it with strong encryption executed well.
You could use the same hocus-pocus people use to explain why say a surface to air missile isn't "arms" to explain why encryption isn't "speech", and honestly it'd probably be easier to do with the latter.
You could use the same hocus-pocus people use to explain why say a surface to air missile isn't "arms" to explain why encryption isn't "speech", and honestly it'd probably be easier to do with the latter.
Encryption is not a weapon of mass destruction.
I can’t point encryption at you and end your life.
I can’t point encryption at you and end your life.
It's an analogy. I readily acknowledge one doesn't directly die from speech (of course both speech and guns can be instrumental in killing).
gun:nuke
plaintext:encrypted
If nukes, which are arms, can be banned under 2A -- why can't encrypted speech be banned under the 1A? I mean hell the 1A can even ban materials of 'prurient interest' which as far as I can tell a picture of a naked woman isn't going directly to kill anyone either.
gun:nuke
plaintext:encrypted
If nukes, which are arms, can be banned under 2A -- why can't encrypted speech be banned under the 1A? I mean hell the 1A can even ban materials of 'prurient interest' which as far as I can tell a picture of a naked woman isn't going directly to kill anyone either.
Nukes can't be banned in the current state of the 2A. But societal norms and expectations (the culture) have now superseded the Constitution, and amending it isn't necessary.
I don't think that's right. There are many exceptions to the 2A, such as the classic example of a sawed off shotgun.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2...
[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22n...
edit to add - per [1] above, 18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861 specifically prohibits "KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE [...] E. Destructive device" which is defined as:
> A “destructive device” includes any explosive, incendiary or poison gas --- (i)bomb; (ii) grenade or (iii) similar device, or any combination of parts designed or intended to be converted into a destructive device, or from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. Does not include black powder or antique type firearms. 18 USC §921(3).
[1] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2...
[2] https://books.google.com/books?id=CmPKNI2z5-AC&q=heller+%22n...
edit to add - per [1] above, 18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861 specifically prohibits "KNOWINGLY POSSESS OR MANUFACTURE [...] E. Destructive device" which is defined as:
> A “destructive device” includes any explosive, incendiary or poison gas --- (i)bomb; (ii) grenade or (iii) similar device, or any combination of parts designed or intended to be converted into a destructive device, or from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. Does not include black powder or antique type firearms. 18 USC §921(3).
The highlight sentences text of [2] talked about WHO was banned from owning arms, not what.
[1] Is just so bad I'm pretty sure it was written by a drunk child (admittedly the intelligence level of most government employees), I would not trust this document AT ALL. It's egregiously wrong. You can own sawed off shotguns with a tax stamp (in fact it was written in law as a tax because they thought they had no constitutional right to ban them). It also says idiotic things like you can't own a gun without a serial number (WTF, a ton of early 20th century guns don't even have these).
Now I know some of you will say "but notch, if you have to get a stamp it's a privilege not a right." And I'll explain to you why that's wrong. If you're allowed to have it, they have to give you the stamp. If you're not? Oh you're gonna love this -- if you're not THEN THEY CAN'T PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT HAVING THE STAMP. Self incrimination. That's right, if you're a criminal you don't legally need the stamp! Only law abiding people have to get it, and hey if you don't theyll just make you a felon so you don't have to get it the next time!
It also uses "transported across strate line" to establish federal jurisdiction which is just straight up 100% wrong, it doesn't need to do that as feds will happily prosecute an item even DIY made in the same state (see conviction of kettler). I actually lost track because it seemed like almost everything I read there was wrong. I hope whoever wrote that has a nice job collecting quarters from the parking meters or something now, because I wouldn't trust them with much else.
Note: this is entertainment and not legal advice. Seek a lawyer before acting in your own individual circumstance.
[1] Is just so bad I'm pretty sure it was written by a drunk child (admittedly the intelligence level of most government employees), I would not trust this document AT ALL. It's egregiously wrong. You can own sawed off shotguns with a tax stamp (in fact it was written in law as a tax because they thought they had no constitutional right to ban them). It also says idiotic things like you can't own a gun without a serial number (WTF, a ton of early 20th century guns don't even have these).
Now I know some of you will say "but notch, if you have to get a stamp it's a privilege not a right." And I'll explain to you why that's wrong. If you're allowed to have it, they have to give you the stamp. If you're not? Oh you're gonna love this -- if you're not THEN THEY CAN'T PROSECUTE YOU FOR NOT HAVING THE STAMP. Self incrimination. That's right, if you're a criminal you don't legally need the stamp! Only law abiding people have to get it, and hey if you don't theyll just make you a felon so you don't have to get it the next time!
It also uses "transported across strate line" to establish federal jurisdiction which is just straight up 100% wrong, it doesn't need to do that as feds will happily prosecute an item even DIY made in the same state (see conviction of kettler). I actually lost track because it seemed like almost everything I read there was wrong. I hope whoever wrote that has a nice job collecting quarters from the parking meters or something now, because I wouldn't trust them with much else.
Note: this is entertainment and not legal advice. Seek a lawyer before acting in your own individual circumstance.
I'm sorry, but let me get this straight. You're implying that 18 U.S. Code § 832[1] is unconstitutional?
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/832
> You're implying that 18 U.S. Code § 832[1] is unconstitutional?
That reads as applying when providing nuclear support to a foreign terrorist power. Technically not incompatible with OP's interpretation, which would presumably be for domestic use.
That reads as applying when providing nuclear support to a foreign terrorist power. Technically not incompatible with OP's interpretation, which would presumably be for domestic use.
How it is compatible with "shall not be infringed"? It sounds like an infringement.
(a) seems likely constitutional as it appears to only restrict those who are not the people inside the united states from bearing nukes. It is "an infringement" but not one of the ability of "the people" of the United States to keep and bear nukes.
(c) I would argue, from a strict reading of the constitution, is unconstitutional as it bans mere possession domestically of nukes. I could be misreading that section though. IMO there really should be constitutional amendment of the second to clearly ban nukes and possibly some other WMDs. As a bonus once all that stuff is spelled out it will give a lot less ammunition for people to hold the second amendment hostage by saying "well we have to interpret it creatively because we'll all be living on a radioactive sheet of glass if we don't."
note: entertainment and not legal advice
side note: Domestically people designated to be "terrorists" can legally buy and be sold arms (see the terrorist screening center list and TSC no-fly list, the people on there can buy guns inside the US if not otherwise prohibited persons). That is someone on the terrorist list at the TSC can walk into a gun store and pass the background check no problem, and be sold a gun domestically.
(c) I would argue, from a strict reading of the constitution, is unconstitutional as it bans mere possession domestically of nukes. I could be misreading that section though. IMO there really should be constitutional amendment of the second to clearly ban nukes and possibly some other WMDs. As a bonus once all that stuff is spelled out it will give a lot less ammunition for people to hold the second amendment hostage by saying "well we have to interpret it creatively because we'll all be living on a radioactive sheet of glass if we don't."
note: entertainment and not legal advice
side note: Domestically people designated to be "terrorists" can legally buy and be sold arms (see the terrorist screening center list and TSC no-fly list, the people on there can buy guns inside the US if not otherwise prohibited persons). That is someone on the terrorist list at the TSC can walk into a gun store and pass the background check no problem, and be sold a gun domestically.
Encryption is less a nuke and more an impenetrable bunker. I can't drop encryption on someone and kill them, but it can keep people safe.
There are, and there is ongoing discussion of, body armor bans. Apologies, don't have time to cite sources now, but you can do a search and find things.
In Canada, the provinces of Alberta and BC require a permit to purchase and wear body armor. That said for Alberta the law only came into force in 2015 or so. Before AFAIK there were no restrictions.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/stat...
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/b04p8
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/stat...
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/b04p8
Correct. I believe New York has, or is attempting to, ban body armor.
[deleted]
I'm not sure about the UK but the US has the 4th Amendment to the Constitution which theoretically[0] provides this sort of protection.
[0] Unfortunately, only in theory considering how often attacks against that protection are made by US policymakers.
[0] Unfortunately, only in theory considering how often attacks against that protection are made by US policymakers.
Everyone's a strict constructionist until they get to the part of the constitution they don't like.
Fundamentally if we're ok with weakening some amendments through interpretation short of constitutional convention we should resign ourselves to the idea that we are weakening all of them.
Fundamentally if we're ok with weakening some amendments through interpretation short of constitutional convention we should resign ourselves to the idea that we are weakening all of them.
Kind of a moot point what you or I or even the majority think. The unelected judges decide the interpretations, and the courts decided the bill of rights are nuked because almost everything is interstate commerce a la Wickard v Filburn and the New Deal etc.
After Dobbs v. Jackson I'm not so sure on the implied right of privacy anymore, given that such a right was the foundation of Roe v. Wade.
I believe the defendant in that case argued with the 14th amendment:
> (1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Edit: I guess it's actually both.
> Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
> (1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Edit: I guess it's actually both.
> Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
the "right to privacy" has nothing to do with the search and seizure-type privacy right. the first is a warren court-era development, patched together from due process, "penumbrae" etc., the second is grounded in the 4th amendment.
In the UK no parliament can bind future parliaments, so, from a purely procedural point of view, any law can be overturned with another law.
Feels like we need something more than just a national bill.
Something like the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified into local law by each country. That would be much harder politically to overturn by the next parliament.
Can't see it happening though.
Something like the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified into local law by each country. That would be much harder politically to overturn by the next parliament.
Can't see it happening though.
It doesnt matter what laws exist if the public, starting at primary school, are not taught the law, not even a TLDR. Its just virtue signalling.
And if you are not taught law, how can anyone claim to live in a democracy to debate the laws?
Everybody is born into a legal dictatorship if you weren't taught law and with todays communication technology, there is no excuse for it. Its just setting people up to be victims of crime especially kids, its a criminal way to make people dependent on employees of the state who claim to be picking up the pieces.
Secondly employees of the state are treated as superior to members of the public by the courts, which makes me think the legal system isn't fit for purpose here in the UK.
And if you are not taught law, how can anyone claim to live in a democracy to debate the laws?
Everybody is born into a legal dictatorship if you weren't taught law and with todays communication technology, there is no excuse for it. Its just setting people up to be victims of crime especially kids, its a criminal way to make people dependent on employees of the state who claim to be picking up the pieces.
Secondly employees of the state are treated as superior to members of the public by the courts, which makes me think the legal system isn't fit for purpose here in the UK.
The same is clearly true of economics and philosophy as well.
I love the Orwellian spin on the name. War is peace. Snooping is safety.
Supporting this type of activity(and other types) was discussed back in 2010: https://www.theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-l...
There are no fundamental rights in the UK, just privileges contingent on the blessings of His Majesty's government.
This is why America fought a war of independence against them.
This is why America fought a war of independence against them.
[deleted]
That would mean you have more power than the house of lords that runs the country. And if you had so much power, it would beg the question why they own all the land and you own none. In practice it takes a "humble king" to create freedom: someone strong enough to rule, but humble enough to give up that power to an elected senate.
95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.
This is a quote from the Unabomber's manifesto for those who aren't aware.
yes, sometime brutal, insane murderers can be right. But they're still brutal, insane murderers. Not saying that you're making any other point, but this particular case hits home for me and worship of this particular piece of slime is rife in these kinds of threads.
I don't like the guy, he's just one of the few people that have articulated the point succinctly in modern English. I'm open to other authors / quotes.
I mean I discuss the writings of haber creating the haber-basch process too, but I think it'd be weird for people to constantly point out how that's improper to cite a guy who spent much of his time creating and distributing chemical weapons.
I mean I discuss the writings of haber creating the haber-basch process too, but I think it'd be weird for people to constantly point out how that's improper to cite a guy who spent much of his time creating and distributing chemical weapons.
> Is that kind of thing possible?
Not in the UK because of parliamentry authority, no. A law cannot be made that binds future parliament from being able to undo it, thus 'fundamental rights' cannot be legislated.
Not in the UK because of parliamentry authority, no. A law cannot be made that binds future parliament from being able to undo it, thus 'fundamental rights' cannot be legislated.
Just keep voting until you win. Then you stop.
Takes a bit more than voting I'm afraid. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
"Won't somebody please think of the children"-style legislation over public safety online is always used as a trojan horse for surveillance and censorship. This has been done so many times at this point that I just default to assuming these measures are created for sinister reasons. I haven't been wrong once yet.
Attacking encryption has always been done in the name of safety, whether from "criminals" or for national security. There are no legitimate reasons why a free people should have their right to encrypted communications taken away. Therefore, when you try to introduce such legislations without such a pretext, people don't like it. They have to create a moral panic (lately usually terrorists or pedophiles) in order to get such legislation to pass.
This is pretty awful:
Before the bill even made it to the House of Lords, you can see the creeping political censorship. In a written statement on 17 January 2023, the government added an amendment that “posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light” should be considered “priority illegal content.”
Before the bill even made it to the House of Lords, you can see the creeping political censorship. In a written statement on 17 January 2023, the government added an amendment that “posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light” should be considered “priority illegal content.”
So once this is enacted, I get to call the police next time I see an advert for P&O Ferries. Sensible.
Let's just DDoS the government to get them to remove ridiculous laws.
Can't show people escaping the UK, I suppose.
Is it this quote you mean?
Amendment 82, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
‘(3A) Content under subsection (3) includes content that may result in serious harm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aim of entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for those purposes.’
This amendment would require proportionate systems and processes, including removal of content, to be in place to control the access by young people to material which encourages them to undertake dangerous Channel crossings where their lives could be lost.
Amendment 82, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
‘(3A) Content under subsection (3) includes content that may result in serious harm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aim of entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for those purposes.’
This amendment would require proportionate systems and processes, including removal of content, to be in place to control the access by young people to material which encourages them to undertake dangerous Channel crossings where their lives could be lost.
Is this the English Channel which is meant by "channel"?
[deleted]
[deleted]
They want to crack down on people traffickers advertising their services.
This is still not the way to do it. There are other of methods of law enforcement[0] that don't require any given message to be available for interception. Something like ANOM is more difficult to pull off but it's also less prone to error, which is a more important thing to optimize.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOM
Yes... but how many times can you pull off ANOM? It worked really well once - but by the time there's the 5th, or 6th, or 7th security company that criminals have never heard of and a long string of dead companies, they'll be quite wary.
I'm sure dedicated people can be more creative than to just do ANOM 7 times but I do get your point.
Anyway, I realized after I wrote the comment that ANOM is a bad example for arguing in favor of ubiquitous end-to-end encryption (E2EE). ANOM is only attractive to criminal organizations because other forms of "E2EE" are not resilient to government snooping. It's kind of an interesting point but I do personally land on a preference for ubiquitous E2EE.
Ultimately, I suspect the resources of law enforcement would win out given enough creativity from officers but, unfortunately, the current ecosystem does not require them to be creative.
Anyway, I realized after I wrote the comment that ANOM is a bad example for arguing in favor of ubiquitous end-to-end encryption (E2EE). ANOM is only attractive to criminal organizations because other forms of "E2EE" are not resilient to government snooping. It's kind of an interesting point but I do personally land on a preference for ubiquitous E2EE.
Ultimately, I suspect the resources of law enforcement would win out given enough creativity from officers but, unfortunately, the current ecosystem does not require them to be creative.
I read an article recently about how easy small boats are to obtain here in Germany, as in the people hiring them out look the other way. They could be made more expensive, or better regulated, and this article was of the opinion that would go a long way to combating that. Because the boats are a one off thing, they can't be retrieved from the UK side.
They also want to crack down on crack, but talking positively about crack is not illegal
Open up safe legal routes then, the lack of which is the main reason why the boat smugglers even have a business.
But doing so would get asylum seekers out of the collective conciousness, which has been politically advantageous to the incumbent party.
But doing so would get asylum seekers out of the collective conciousness, which has been politically advantageous to the incumbent party.
I don't see how it has been advantageous to the incumbent party since they have conspicuously failed to prevent the problem.
In several places in the world, the local Conservative party incites / leverages "fear of the other" to the mainstream. If the problem were to either be fixed or go away, they would lose major, major recruiting impetus.
I'm not necessarily interested in following through the more tenuous links. But illegal immigrants are an absolute boom to Conservative parties. It's a recruitment, it's a distraction, it's an effective and frequent emotional lever.
I'm not necessarily interested in following through the more tenuous links. But illegal immigrants are an absolute boom to Conservative parties. It's a recruitment, it's a distraction, it's an effective and frequent emotional lever.
If they fix the problem that removes a reason to vote for them.
What happened to good old infiltration? Or put a bounty on traffickers. Trade passports or permanent residence for information leading to an arrest.
presumably they can do that without criminalizing speech
How many traffickers selling overpriced dinghy rides across the Channel advertise within the UK, where the UK law can actually reach?
No, that amendment was clearly intended to prevent lefty liberals like me from saying that the asylum seekers themselves are in any way decent or good or deserving of support.
Same party used similar language for a thing called "Section 28", so they don't get to pretend they don't know what effect it would have.
No, that amendment was clearly intended to prevent lefty liberals like me from saying that the asylum seekers themselves are in any way decent or good or deserving of support.
Same party used similar language for a thing called "Section 28", so they don't get to pretend they don't know what effect it would have.
That's not true at all. The Online Safety Bill simply designates as a priority content that breaks an existing prohibition against aiding, abetting, counselling, and conspiring to carry out offenses under the Immigration Act 1971. Lefty open-borders types can continue to say what they like.
The connection to section 28 is spurious and deserves no rebuttal. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
The connection to section 28 is spurious and deserves no rebuttal. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
[deleted]
> an existing prohibition against aiding, abetting, counselling, and conspiring to carry out offenses under the Immigration Act 1971
I could believe that's a thing (although I'd appreciate a reference if you've got it). I couldn't, however, believe "posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light" counts as any of those things.
I could believe that's a thing (although I'd appreciate a reference if you've got it). I couldn't, however, believe "posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light" counts as any of those things.
> We will also add section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 to the priority offences list in schedule 7. Although the offences in section 24 cannot be carried out online, paragraph 33 of the schedule states that priority illegal content includes the inchoate offences relating to the offences that are listed. Therefore, aiding, abetting, counselling, conspiring etc. those offences by posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light could be an offence that is committed online and therefore falls within what is priority illegal content. The result of this amendment would therefore be that platforms would have to proactively remove that content.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-01-17/debates/230...
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-01-17/debates/230...
Many thanks.
It's actually section 25. That confused me for a bit. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/25
I don't see how anyone can get from what's written there to "aiding, abetting, counselling, conspiring etc. those offences by posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light". It just says "facilitates". But I know nothing about law.
It's actually section 25. That confused me for a bit. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/25
I don't see how anyone can get from what's written there to "aiding, abetting, counselling, conspiring etc. those offences by posting videos of people crossing the channel that show that activity in a positive light". It just says "facilitates". But I know nothing about law.
> the asylum seekers themselves are in any way decent or good or deserving of support
I think the many generally feel the same way about refugees but just that a lot of the people arriving are not validly refugees. People boating out of France to the UK are, by international definition, not refugees. They've already escaped persecution in their home countries.
My parents jumped a border while emigrating to avoid a war so I empathize but I wish we could discuss the topic without emotionally loading it by calling people asylum seekers when they are not or implying that others don't care about people in general. There are resource and fairness issues that emotional appeals won't make go away.
I think the many generally feel the same way about refugees but just that a lot of the people arriving are not validly refugees. People boating out of France to the UK are, by international definition, not refugees. They've already escaped persecution in their home countries.
My parents jumped a border while emigrating to avoid a war so I empathize but I wish we could discuss the topic without emotionally loading it by calling people asylum seekers when they are not or implying that others don't care about people in general. There are resource and fairness issues that emotional appeals won't make go away.
> People boating out of France to the UK are, by international definition, not refugees.
Which international law do you think does that? (I'm assuming from your username that you're a lawyer; I'm not, though I do try to read the texts of statutes sometimes).
I remember hearing a lot about the Dublin Regulation, but that's an EU rule that no longer applies because of Brexit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation
(I tried reading the legal text for this even though the UK is no longer in it, but a casual skim didn't get me anything that did what it's usually claimed as doing, the claim being that it requires asylum seekers to claim in the first safe country).
> There are resource and fairness issues that emotional appeals won't make go away.
This particular point I vehemently disagree with. The resource and fairness issues with regard to these people is, IMO, caused by their demonisation in the public eye and as such will be fixed by emotional appeal.
This is because their status legal status means they are by default actively prevented from working and covering their own costs, and this only has some limited exceptions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/handling-applicat...
Which international law do you think does that? (I'm assuming from your username that you're a lawyer; I'm not, though I do try to read the texts of statutes sometimes).
I remember hearing a lot about the Dublin Regulation, but that's an EU rule that no longer applies because of Brexit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation
(I tried reading the legal text for this even though the UK is no longer in it, but a casual skim didn't get me anything that did what it's usually claimed as doing, the claim being that it requires asylum seekers to claim in the first safe country).
> There are resource and fairness issues that emotional appeals won't make go away.
This particular point I vehemently disagree with. The resource and fairness issues with regard to these people is, IMO, caused by their demonisation in the public eye and as such will be fixed by emotional appeal.
This is because their status legal status means they are by default actively prevented from working and covering their own costs, and this only has some limited exceptions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/handling-applicat...
> > by international definition, not refugees.
> Which international law do you think does that?
I used the term 'international definition' intentionally. I'm speaking about the common definition of the word not including people in the situation of crossing multiple large friendly countries to go to another as refugees at that point. The immediate threat to life and limb is over and now others are in more dire need.
And yet, it's not as simple as entry to the first country either, because we can both acknowledge that if someone escaping from Syria crosses the border into Iraq or Lebanon that they should keep on walking until they find an actually safe place.
But the point is that you're talking to people, using emotional terms, but trying to use legalistic reasoning to make them do something they feel is not only needed but benefits the wrong people. They're using their eyes and judging the conditions of the refugee claimants and finding them wanting.
> > emotional appeals won't make go away.
> caused by their demonisation in the public eye and as such will be fixed by emotional appeal.
I have a feeling that this has already been tried and that there's probably some misalignment preventing that from working - maybe making it backfire. Maybe that you may feel that this isn't a valid political opinion on the values of the refugee system but a comment on the race of the claimants or something...?
Thankfully in my country many of the questionable refugee claimants are the same racial group as many current legal immigrants and this is defusing that would otherwise be a nasty race-baiting angle to the debate.
Otherwise, I would ask what more demonization you think is needed other than for them to be shown to be jumping a queue meant to save lives?
> their status legal status means they are by default actively prevented from working and covering their own costs
If they really are fleeing for their life we can cover the costs and would be glad to.
> Which international law do you think does that?
I used the term 'international definition' intentionally. I'm speaking about the common definition of the word not including people in the situation of crossing multiple large friendly countries to go to another as refugees at that point. The immediate threat to life and limb is over and now others are in more dire need.
And yet, it's not as simple as entry to the first country either, because we can both acknowledge that if someone escaping from Syria crosses the border into Iraq or Lebanon that they should keep on walking until they find an actually safe place.
But the point is that you're talking to people, using emotional terms, but trying to use legalistic reasoning to make them do something they feel is not only needed but benefits the wrong people. They're using their eyes and judging the conditions of the refugee claimants and finding them wanting.
> > emotional appeals won't make go away.
> caused by their demonisation in the public eye and as such will be fixed by emotional appeal.
I have a feeling that this has already been tried and that there's probably some misalignment preventing that from working - maybe making it backfire. Maybe that you may feel that this isn't a valid political opinion on the values of the refugee system but a comment on the race of the claimants or something...?
Thankfully in my country many of the questionable refugee claimants are the same racial group as many current legal immigrants and this is defusing that would otherwise be a nasty race-baiting angle to the debate.
Otherwise, I would ask what more demonization you think is needed other than for them to be shown to be jumping a queue meant to save lives?
> their status legal status means they are by default actively prevented from working and covering their own costs
If they really are fleeing for their life we can cover the costs and would be glad to.
To the last point: until their claim is processed in the UK, which can take years, they have no right to work and have to rely on meagre public handouts or work under the table to survive. This makes them a drain on taxpayers despite being able to support themselves if they were allowed, and paid employment promotes integration. I think it stays the way it is because of "taking the jobs" of natives and it also allows politicians to demonize them as a drain on the public purse (which they are but through no fault of their own) as a distraction/othering.
> This makes them a drain on taxpayers despite being able to support themselves if they were allowed
I hear this from people who seem to be promoting using the system as a back-door way into a permanent work visa. I'd rather avoid perverse incentives and just support people.
> I think it stays the way it is because of "taking the jobs" of natives
This sounds like something a privileged knowledge worker can sneer at the low-brows for. I think it's as valid a consideration as any other import/tariff type issue and should be examined honestly. Again though, we can avoid the issue by simply paying to help refugees and that's probably the kindest.
If we allow them to work then we're essentially requiring them to work and if they just escaped with their lives they probably have other priorities for a while. The economic benefit for us from more workers is minimal enough that we can forego it to make a better and less exploitative system.
> allows politicians to demonize them as a drain on the public purse
I think there are enough obviously false claims that people are upset about that they're not worried about the costs of the honest claimants.
I hear this from people who seem to be promoting using the system as a back-door way into a permanent work visa. I'd rather avoid perverse incentives and just support people.
> I think it stays the way it is because of "taking the jobs" of natives
This sounds like something a privileged knowledge worker can sneer at the low-brows for. I think it's as valid a consideration as any other import/tariff type issue and should be examined honestly. Again though, we can avoid the issue by simply paying to help refugees and that's probably the kindest.
If we allow them to work then we're essentially requiring them to work and if they just escaped with their lives they probably have other priorities for a while. The economic benefit for us from more workers is minimal enough that we can forego it to make a better and less exploitative system.
> allows politicians to demonize them as a drain on the public purse
I think there are enough obviously false claims that people are upset about that they're not worried about the costs of the honest claimants.
If only the UK had some sort of naval tradition and could send their own ships into the channel to enforce the UK's will, rather than trying to fix the problem by arresting people for saying shit online.
Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the... net. Britons will never be... Hmm, this song will need a lot of changes.
Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the... net. Britons will never be... Hmm, this song will need a lot of changes.
[deleted]
The traffickers aren't in the UK.
It's remarkable how close the UK is getting to CN-styled internet. It would not surprise me to see a proposal to firewall the island off from the rest of the world, mandatory British government apps for services, etc., following the permanent installation of a dictator. Coupled with the promotion of a national digital currency, it's hard to see a future where Britain does not devolve into fascism. It has not had a democratically elected leader for years now.
The UK doesn't elect a leader, it elects a parliamentary party which chooses its own leadership. People did actually vote for this.
Although for the people in scotland, this is more accurate. We are not represented for over a decade by the UK government, and have been removed from the EU against our will...
Although for the people in scotland, this is more accurate. We are not represented for over a decade by the UK government, and have been removed from the EU against our will...
There are 59 Scottish MPs in Parliament, many of whom support the Online Safety Bill. In fact, SNP MPs have consistently argued for stronger 'protections' than the Bill's proposers originally wanted. How is Scotland not represented in Parliament?
> it elects a parliamentary party which chooses its own leadership
That’s not quite true - the parliamentary Tory and Labour parties gave away the right to select the leader to their members. Hence we got Truss who MPs didn’t vote for but members did.
That’s not quite true - the parliamentary Tory and Labour parties gave away the right to select the leader to their members. Hence we got Truss who MPs didn’t vote for but members did.
43.6% of the electorate voted for the Tory party on a manifesto not very much like what the current government is delivering. So even if one accepts that the Tory party totally changing the platform of their government doesn't justify saying nobody voted for it, the current party in government got its majority in parliament with the support of a minority of voters thanks to a fundamentally undemocratic electoral system.
By that measure, it's pretty reasonable to say that people did not vote for this.
By that measure, it's pretty reasonable to say that people did not vote for this.
Utterly absurd comment, supported in no way by any evidence. This bill has wide cross party support. There is a lot of blame for it's stupidity to go around. You've lived a very sheltered life if you think the UK in any manner is an authoritarian unaccountable state. COVID hysteria aside
> if you think the UK in any manner is an authoritarian unaccountable state. COVID hysteria aside
And punishment for tweeting mean things aside: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
And dragnet surveillance aside: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016?...
And the likely introduction of complete monetary surveillance and control aside: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-07/uk-plans-...
The slope is indeed slippery, and the UK is very far down it already.
And punishment for tweeting mean things aside: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/31/23004339/uk-twitter-user-...
And dragnet surveillance aside: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016?...
And the likely introduction of complete monetary surveillance and control aside: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-07/uk-plans-...
The slope is indeed slippery, and the UK is very far down it already.
The UK arrests 3300 people annually for being mildly offensive on the internet. That's an arrest almost every 2 and a half hours. Two examples of people being formally charged include a man for saying "get off of my football team" and a teenage girl for posting the lyrics of her dead friend's favourite rap song in his memory. No other western nation is this bad.
Interesting choice of examples you picked there.
Indeed it is ridiculous to arrest people for saying things on the internet where violence is no being incited or condoned.
Indeed it is ridiculous to arrest people for saying things on the internet where violence is no being incited or condoned.
The current government is of a party that has a majority in parliament despite getting a minority of the votes. It's fairly reasonable to consider the UK undemocratic and unaccountable, even if there are far worse alternatives.
[deleted]
> The current government is of a party that has a majority in parliament despite getting a minority of the votes.
if you don’t know how the UK system works, then yes, you are correct.
if you don’t know how the UK system works, then yes, you are correct.
It's knowing full well how the UK system works for many decades, and living here for a couple of decades and observing the largescale disenfranchisement of UK voters which has made me firmly hold that opinion.
> observing the largescale disenfranchisement of UK voters
i think you’re confusing democracy in general (and it’s many flaws) with whatever you’ve noticed in the UK. if you’d study other democratic countries you’d find huge issues as well.
i think you’re confusing democracy in general (and it’s many flaws) with whatever you’ve noticed in the UK. if you’d study other democratic countries you’d find huge issues as well.
Describe examples of this "disenfranchisement" please.
[deleted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting Parties can and do win despite most people voting against them if those against them don't vote for the same party. Other voting systems don't have this problem, but allow voters to be represented in the proportions in which they vote.
> allow voters to be represented in the proportions in which they vote.
lived most of my life in such a system. it basically disenfranchised people from voting as whatever party they voted for never got enough votes and had to go into an alliance with other parties thus dropping their election pledges and thus removing any sort of democratic mandate. result: fewer and fewer people now go out to vote: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300427/eu-parlament-turn...
lived most of my life in such a system. it basically disenfranchised people from voting as whatever party they voted for never got enough votes and had to go into an alliance with other parties thus dropping their election pledges and thus removing any sort of democratic mandate. result: fewer and fewer people now go out to vote: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300427/eu-parlament-turn...
Under FPTP a large proportion of voters lose effective representation, while in a proportional system you are able to vote for parties who will negotiate the way you want them to. I grew up on Norway, where parties always would go into elections with promises about what their negotiation goals for a coalition would be, because people understood that enfranchising as many as possible means negotiated compromises, not letting on faction push through whatever they want.
Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
> negotiated compromises
exactly this is why voters simply don't turn up to vote any more. by "negotiating" those parties break their election pledges to their voters. voters thus become disenfranchised. we can see the end result today: very few people vote.
> Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
there are many ways to judge democracies. that's just one of the myriad of indicators.
exactly this is why voters simply don't turn up to vote any more. by "negotiating" those parties break their election pledges to their voters. voters thus become disenfranchised. we can see the end result today: very few people vote.
> Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
there are many ways to judge democracies. that's just one of the myriad of indicators.
What does a 'minority of the votes' mean? In the 2019 general election, the conservatives got 13,966,000 votes and the next largest party got 10,269,000.
The Tories got 43.6% of the votes. So a minority of the votes cast gave them a substantial majority of the seats in parliament. Only the fundamentally undemocratic electoral system gave them the ability to form a government without negotiating a coalition.
I understand that some people don't agree with First Past the Post systems, but it's a little overblown to say it's fundamentally undemocratic. And I don't see how a coalition government formed through horse trading and favor-swapping in backroom negotiations is more democratic.
(Somewhat related: Anyone who complains about the 'undemocratically elected' Tories is compelled by consistency to complain about the 'undemocratically elected' Labour government of Tony Blair and the likely forthcoming 'undemocratic' government of Kier Starmer. If they are quiet about that, then they haven't a leg to stand on. See also complaining about the results of the Brexit Referendum, which won a clear, although narrow, majority of the people who bothered to vote, and was therefore legitimate by the lights of people who prefer majority decisions.)
(Somewhat related: Anyone who complains about the 'undemocratically elected' Tories is compelled by consistency to complain about the 'undemocratically elected' Labour government of Tony Blair and the likely forthcoming 'undemocratic' government of Kier Starmer. If they are quiet about that, then they haven't a leg to stand on. See also complaining about the results of the Brexit Referendum, which won a clear, although narrow, majority of the people who bothered to vote, and was therefore legitimate by the lights of people who prefer majority decisions.)
I absolutely consider every government elected with a minority of the votes under FPTP to have been illegitimate and undemocratic.
A government formed through negotiation is more democratic if you accept that a representative government can ever be democratic and that the parties actually represents the interests of their voters in as much as if neither party achieves a majority, then a compromise that provides for some of what is wanted by all is more democratic. If anything, I'd argue the broader coalition the more democratic - democracies are best measured by how well they ensure also the interests of the minorities are protected.
A government formed through negotiation is more democratic if you accept that a representative government can ever be democratic and that the parties actually represents the interests of their voters in as much as if neither party achieves a majority, then a compromise that provides for some of what is wanted by all is more democratic. If anything, I'd argue the broader coalition the more democratic - democracies are best measured by how well they ensure also the interests of the minorities are protected.
> every government elected with a minority of the votes under FPTP ... illegitimate and undemocratic
The social contract isn't to be "only be ruled by a strict majority" but to agree to be ruled by the party who wins by any workable system.
The social contract isn't to be "only be ruled by a strict majority" but to agree to be ruled by the party who wins by any workable system.
A contract implies a meeting of minds. I do not accept any system which has systematically denied me representation my entire adult life as legitimate in any way.
A system imposed on people which denies them representation has no claim to be considered democratic.
A system imposed on people which denies them representation has no claim to be considered democratic.
All representative systems are somewhat undemocratic but the point of them is to pick someone who's we can agree is legitimately the winner of the contest - not to deadlock trying to pick a winner to a better standard.
The primary goal isn't to represent, but to reduce misrepresentation to the point where we can literally live with it.
To me it's only illegitimate if this is coupled with unreasonable attempts to keep us from improving the system as technology and knowledge give us the means.
The primary goal isn't to represent, but to reduce misrepresentation to the point where we can literally live with it.
To me it's only illegitimate if this is coupled with unreasonable attempts to keep us from improving the system as technology and knowledge give us the means.
>UK in any manner is an authoritarian unaccountable state.
There is a guy named Assange who has been rotting in a UK dungeon for years who would beg to differ.
There is a guy named Assange who has been rotting in a UK dungeon for years who would beg to differ.
Technically the basement of the Equadorian embassy
Funny thing, but we tend not to give bail to people who have jumped bail.
yes, the person you are replying to is not an expert at UK politics, but then you went right off the hinges with the rest of your post. the UK is one of the biggest police states in the west. the king of punk was to be executed for insulting the queen just 40 or whatever years ago. it was or is illegal to give someone the middle finger. someone got jail for 60 days for saying something racist on twitter or facebook. the UK literally favors "decency" over basic freedoms
Can you provide a source for a proposed execution in 1983?
> At the time of the punk icons’ rise to fame, capital punishment remained on the statute books for the crime of high treason even though it had been abolished for all other crimes. While it’s unlikely Lydon and his bandmates would have been charged with that offense, media speculation called for them to be accused of treason for the lyrics to “God Save the Queen” in 1977.
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lydon-death-penalty-sex...
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lydon-death-penalty-sex...
While the 14th Century act that defined treason includes, "imaging the monarch's death," I think this is a farce.
> That the likes of Facebook have failed in their duty to moderate content is part of what has led to the OSB.
No, the idea that the likes of facebook have a "duty to moderate content" led to the OSB.
No, the idea that the likes of facebook have a "duty to moderate content" led to the OSB.
As far as literally illegal content like for example abuse material goes, Facebook like any other business has an obligation to make sure it doesn't facilitate it. That's no different than any old fashioned offline business having to make sure activity is within the law.
i'm pretty sure both the article and the person you replied to are talking about verbal abuse as opposed to illegal content. and no, websites DO NOT have an obligation to make sure their content is legal. that's your own misconception as well as many judges but at the end of the day forcing people to chase intractable problems is always wrong and naive. the root problem here is that it's possible for content to be illegal, along with billion dollar brainwashing profit oriented prosecution business that made you think this is a rampant problem (it isn't).
this article is uninteresting clickbait by fake grassroots webshit crypto company that can be cracked in 2 seconds solely because their trusted code base is hundreds of millions of lines of code in 7 different languages including C. we are just here to cringe at yet another UK police state episode more than anything particular the article stated
this article is uninteresting clickbait by fake grassroots webshit crypto company that can be cracked in 2 seconds solely because their trusted code base is hundreds of millions of lines of code in 7 different languages including C. we are just here to cringe at yet another UK police state episode more than anything particular the article stated
So the Govt now gonna MITM the facebook traffic and moderate it? They'll need to build huge pipes....
> But even allowing for that challenge, and that the OSB has some genuinely good intentions, the proposed legislation is still remarkably poor.
The part where these articles always claim a horrific bill has some genuinely good intentions - it's truly obnoxiously weasely.
No it does not have genuinely good intentions. It's a fraud wrapped inside a con wrapped inside a gigantic theft of human liberty and privacy.
Just because someone feeds you sugar so that the poison they're giving you tastes better, it does not mean the intentions are good.
The part where these articles always claim a horrific bill has some genuinely good intentions - it's truly obnoxiously weasely.
No it does not have genuinely good intentions. It's a fraud wrapped inside a con wrapped inside a gigantic theft of human liberty and privacy.
Just because someone feeds you sugar so that the poison they're giving you tastes better, it does not mean the intentions are good.
Meanwhile, Big Tech will continue to use encryption to lock down the computers that they want us to think we own, but are ultimately under their control since they have the keys.
> The bill takes a wrecking ball to the very fabric of encryption, by requiring encrypted messaging apps to scan for abusive content within the app (or the app’s underlying operating system).
Perhaps I misunderstand the analogy, but this doesn't seem to do anything to the "very fabric of encryption."
It certainly would make me have zero trust in any encrypted messaging apps that continue to operate in the UK and follow this law. Otherwise, anyone who wants to have truly encrypted messaging can do this on their own. And if the barrier of entry for learning how to sign messages is too high, I don't doubt that open source encrypted messaging apps already exist or will quickly come into existence and will refuse to comply with laws like these.
What are they going to do, force math to comply with their laws?
Perhaps I misunderstand the analogy, but this doesn't seem to do anything to the "very fabric of encryption."
It certainly would make me have zero trust in any encrypted messaging apps that continue to operate in the UK and follow this law. Otherwise, anyone who wants to have truly encrypted messaging can do this on their own. And if the barrier of entry for learning how to sign messages is too high, I don't doubt that open source encrypted messaging apps already exist or will quickly come into existence and will refuse to comply with laws like these.
What are they going to do, force math to comply with their laws?
I assume they would have something like a keylogger so that it was scanned before being encrypted/after being decrypted
Not really surprised - the UK is already Europe's biggest surveillance state.
UK was a cradle of democracy. Those steps rise questions, if this kind of democracy is what we are really looking for.
Anything calling itself Safety” without indicating what it provides safety from is probably a restriction on freedom. What gets me about the UK is they use euphamisms so much it ends up sounding more sinister. In the US we’d just hid it in a farm bill or something though, not that much better.
I like to view governments like John Gall viewed systems. Government -- like systems -- will expand to fill the known universe. Encryption makes the known unknown so it's not built to last within unchecked government system sprawl.
"We all want to be able to address abuse on the internet."
No, we don't. Many of us are fine with free speech, and believe the only valid form of censorship is choosing not to listen.
No, we don't. Many of us are fine with free speech, and believe the only valid form of censorship is choosing not to listen.
I suspect the quoted poster would have been referring to images of sexual abuse. Not the prepubescent saying, "Yo' mum..."
This is probably an unpopular and overly-lax opinion, but I think the bureaucrats have to put something out there to justify themeselves. Is there any other mechanism available to them to start discussions and discover why it's a bad idea?
Isn't the process of writing legislation just an attempt to enumerate all possible ideas in line with their party as a matter of course?
Isn't the process of writing legislation just an attempt to enumerate all possible ideas in line with their party as a matter of course?
This isn't bureaucracy, it's creeping fascism.
And I don't say that lightly.
It won't succeed, but that's the current reality.
And I don't say that lightly.
It won't succeed, but that's the current reality.
And if it isn't intentional it's a demonstration of ignorance about history, government, and how technology works. The supporters should be kicked out of office or lose their jobs if unelected. They can get jobs managing restaurants or something else autocratic.
In the UK this has been knocked off the table multiple times, and yet somehow it keeps finding it's way back. "They only have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time".
[deleted]
I really wonder what will happen to escort sites like AW and VS when this bill inevitably passes. With “controlling prostitution for gain” being a priority offence in the Bill, it seems like escort sites will be running a major risk, since they directly facilitate such activity.
The UK is making many bad decisions, and descending into a dystopian horror. Where to emigrate to?
[deleted]
Come to Bermuda. If you want to know more email me from the details in my bio.
> And all that loss of security will be for nothing because - no surprise - bad actors don’t play by the rules.
Well, bad actors and most of FOSS.
Well, bad actors and most of FOSS.
Is it to protect the children? :-/
Most child abuse is in family, between relatives. I dont know how exactly banning encryption should protect them. Where are studies or data for justify this bills?
I guess it's just another fear agenda to tight freedom and human rights and rise state surveillance. Like terrorisms brings CCTV and phone monitoring, etc.
I guess it's just another fear agenda to tight freedom and human rights and rise state surveillance. Like terrorisms brings CCTV and phone monitoring, etc.
Oh I know, my comment was (and based off multiple comments it was unclear) intended to be "oh, they're using 'protect the children' to preflight surveillance again aren't they?"
More like to subdue them.
I thought this bill was being dropped as part of the re-shuffle?
seems to be in a committee phase:
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
freedom (liberty) really goes away if we stop defending it.
it's like cleaning (like any and all maintenance work), you're never done with it.
what a lie (a mistake) to believe that liberty once fought and realized stays with us, in a state of having been won. It must be maintained, it's like being in shape.
Liberty, software, bureaucracies and their complicated interactions... why must it get worse before it gets better?
why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep?
it's like cleaning (like any and all maintenance work), you're never done with it.
what a lie (a mistake) to believe that liberty once fought and realized stays with us, in a state of having been won. It must be maintained, it's like being in shape.
Liberty, software, bureaucracies and their complicated interactions... why must it get worse before it gets better?
why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep?
> it's like cleaning (like any and all maintenance work), you're never done with it
And governments are going to constantly try to regulate the Internet and crack down on it, because it's a threat to them. Look at China where regulation reached its logical conclusion.
I'm just enjoying our little golden age of the web where I don't have to upload a scan of my passport just to read a blog post. These are the good ol' days we will look back on fondly. Make the most of them.
And governments are going to constantly try to regulate the Internet and crack down on it, because it's a threat to them. Look at China where regulation reached its logical conclusion.
I'm just enjoying our little golden age of the web where I don't have to upload a scan of my passport just to read a blog post. These are the good ol' days we will look back on fondly. Make the most of them.
How about no? Let's fight and make it better, for us and for our children.
>why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep?
Tyranny is the default of civilization. When left alone, that's what it turns into. Tyranny is weeds in your garden. A few here and there not plucked, after a while, you have nothing to eat. Freedom and liberty must always be tended to because of this.
Tyranny is the default of civilization. When left alone, that's what it turns into. Tyranny is weeds in your garden. A few here and there not plucked, after a while, you have nothing to eat. Freedom and liberty must always be tended to because of this.
> why does it seem like tyranny is easier to keep?
I think it's a lot like the "paradox of tolerance". if society is too tolerant of intolerant people, the intolerant people end up taking over and society becomes intolerant as a whole.
Analogously, there are always people, organizations, and emergent forces that seek to deprive individuals of their freedom. A society that is excessively free will allow these forces to flourish, leading to loss of freedom and ultimately an unfree society.
In an economic context for example, this is the basic argument in support of antitrust law.
I think it's a lot like the "paradox of tolerance". if society is too tolerant of intolerant people, the intolerant people end up taking over and society becomes intolerant as a whole.
Analogously, there are always people, organizations, and emergent forces that seek to deprive individuals of their freedom. A society that is excessively free will allow these forces to flourish, leading to loss of freedom and ultimately an unfree society.
In an economic context for example, this is the basic argument in support of antitrust law.
There’s no paradox. Force is only justified in response to force. You don’t have the right to censor speech you find offensive if that speech isn’t making a threat. You’re the only one trying to deprive people of their freedom.
Popper originally called it the "paradox of tolerance", and that's the name people know it by.
I'm really tired of the "paradox of intolerance" being brought up, mainly because the people who use it are almost always using it to defend a government making something illegal.
And I'm tired of police brutality being brought up, but innocent civilians keep dying at the hands of police officers. I'm also tired of talking about inflation and housing prices, but the numbers keep going up even when I close my eyes, cover my ears, and shake my head a lot.
Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I posited an explanation for why tyranny in some form another seems like a default state in human organizations. If you think my explanation is wrong, I'd like to hear an actual argument or evidence against it.
Anyway, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I posited an explanation for why tyranny in some form another seems like a default state in human organizations. If you think my explanation is wrong, I'd like to hear an actual argument or evidence against it.
I guess my comment was a bit of an axe-grind rather than a response to your statement. I saw "paradox of tolerance" and was triggered.
To clarify, I find it frustrating when people justify the government making laws that limit or take away existing freedoms by claiming that they are "preventing intolerance". I believe that laws are, first and foremost, justifications for the government to use force against you, and no government in the history of mankind has ever given a single shit about "preventing intolerance". They care about keeping the rich rich and the working class oppressed and powerless.
To your point, I completely disagree, and think it's extremely naive. Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history.
To clarify, I find it frustrating when people justify the government making laws that limit or take away existing freedoms by claiming that they are "preventing intolerance". I believe that laws are, first and foremost, justifications for the government to use force against you, and no government in the history of mankind has ever given a single shit about "preventing intolerance". They care about keeping the rich rich and the working class oppressed and powerless.
To your point, I completely disagree, and think it's extremely naive. Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history.
> Tyrannical governments seem to be the default because it's the easiest way for the powerful to control the powerless, which is the fundamental purpose of most governments throughout history.
Okay, but that's the whole nature of OP's question: Why does tyranny arise again and again, as if it were a natural equilibrium state of some kind?
I don't see why government should be treated differently from other institutions in analyzing this question. Deebo and Lord Farquad were both tyrants; was the nature of their tyranny any different, just because one happened to represent "government" and the other didn't?
My proposition is that it requires constant effort and vigilance to prevent the rise of tyranny, because the forces that lead to tyranny are ever-present. So any society that exists temporarily in a non-tyrannical state is still subject to power grabs and takeover attempts by would-be tyrants.
Maybe you're implying that the existence of a state or government is what facilitates such tyranny; I've heard that one many times. I contend that if the state did not exist, then other people and institutions would fill the same role; that the nonexistence of a state would not represent an impediment to tyranny; and that the existence of a state is not itself a strong indicator of the presence of tyranny.
Okay, but that's the whole nature of OP's question: Why does tyranny arise again and again, as if it were a natural equilibrium state of some kind?
I don't see why government should be treated differently from other institutions in analyzing this question. Deebo and Lord Farquad were both tyrants; was the nature of their tyranny any different, just because one happened to represent "government" and the other didn't?
My proposition is that it requires constant effort and vigilance to prevent the rise of tyranny, because the forces that lead to tyranny are ever-present. So any society that exists temporarily in a non-tyrannical state is still subject to power grabs and takeover attempts by would-be tyrants.
Maybe you're implying that the existence of a state or government is what facilitates such tyranny; I've heard that one many times. I contend that if the state did not exist, then other people and institutions would fill the same role; that the nonexistence of a state would not represent an impediment to tyranny; and that the existence of a state is not itself a strong indicator of the presence of tyranny.
Depends who's doing the tyranising. The state can also protect against tyrany from other sources and a other times it is itself tyrannical. I mean that "the state", like " the people" is different things at different times and places.
Or using intolerant as a synonym for "stuff i dont like" and/or obliging othets to be intolerant of x
I think we all know how important encryption is but what about the tyranny of unaccountable foreign actors? Is liberty allowing communication that isn't beholden to anyone? It's a complicated question.
I disagree, I think the definition of liberty is not being beholden to anyone.
HN thinks KYC and subpoena access is great for bank accounts. Information is even more dangerous than money. We should know who says what where it is going and be able to subpeona the underlying information. It could be criminal activity, communication to terrorists, etc and even just producing non-criminal information aids these criminals by hiding it in the noise.
People who aren't doing anything wrong should not be penalised, there's the presumption of innocence which is an underlying principal of a free state. Should police have keys to every house in case of domestic violence?
Nah battering rams are fine and more fun. It's also a good excuse for them to toss a flash-bang in the crib on the way in.
If somehow an un-pickable lock were the only way to get into a house and a sizeable portion of houses could practically be built that way, you can bet the courts would invent a reason why the government has to have the key in basically every anglo-sphere country. It would only take a few news stories about "women beaten to death while police desperately and futilely attempt entry" or "terrorist hiding in London house, alive and well years after attack but unable to be arrested" before half the public would start begging for something to be done about it.
If somehow an un-pickable lock were the only way to get into a house and a sizeable portion of houses could practically be built that way, you can bet the courts would invent a reason why the government has to have the key in basically every anglo-sphere country. It would only take a few news stories about "women beaten to death while police desperately and futilely attempt entry" or "terrorist hiding in London house, alive and well years after attack but unable to be arrested" before half the public would start begging for something to be done about it.
That's not a analogous scenario though, because a) afaik police still need a warrant for a battering ram, they can't just enter, and b) battering rams are kind of a 1 time thing and very very obvious. The key is more like the police can just let themselves in at any time to check that there's no dv going on. If you're not home you don't even know if they were there. And incidentally some silverware has gone missing... That's closer to the scenario we're talking about.
The scenario you proposed was domestic violence.
It's actually a myth police have to have a warrant in the US. There are a couple other options
1) Hot pursuit
2) Exigency
Domestic violence falls under the second. Battering ram can come out.
It's actually a myth police have to have a warrant in the US. There are a couple other options
1) Hot pursuit
2) Exigency
Domestic violence falls under the second. Battering ram can come out.
Actually I'm in UK although it might be the same here. Second point still stands though: you can't tell if someone has been into your house.
Edit: to elaborate on "the silverware", "the police" having access means effectively anyone has access. It's not just 1 infallible person, you're giving that key to the whole station, and it's being kept somewhere, which makes it (more) vulnerable to theft, especially since a large cache of such keys is going to be much more attractive to a criminal than a single key.
Edit: to elaborate on "the silverware", "the police" having access means effectively anyone has access. It's not just 1 infallible person, you're giving that key to the whole station, and it's being kept somewhere, which makes it (more) vulnerable to theft, especially since a large cache of such keys is going to be much more attractive to a criminal than a single key.
Ah yes, as if terrorists care about what the law says?
Encryption is illegal guys, let's meet in the cafe/s
The law doesn't do dick to stop criminals, it's to punish them after they break it. Hence laws regulating drugs, guns, etc which all can trivially be broken.
The point is this only inconveniences/penalises law abiders. If there's a terrorist whatever what they're doing is already illegal, we don't need more laws to penalise them after the fact. And actually I think the bill is about forcing companies that make messenger services to backdoor encryption, rather than individuals.
No, we don’t. Which is one if the reasons we are building crypto.
I bitch about KYC laws every time I run into them.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson was infamous for pitching outlandish ideas like this in the face of mounting criticism of his party and governance. my hypothesis is this bill serves to misdirect the public using moral panic to distract from serious issues like the NHS funding crisis and the slow rolling catastrophe of brexit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_strategy